THE Journal has run an important article about the efforts to overhaul Computer Science education in the U.S. (Overhauling Computer Science Education – Nov/Dec 2011.)

It’s long been a mystery to me that computer science isn’t being taught in U.S. schools. No, not computer literacy, which is also important, but often stops at the “how to use application x, y, or z” level. Why are we not teaching students how to program, master, and manage the most powerful aspects of the most important invention of the 20th and 21st century?

I believe there are two reasons, both based in fear.

1. Fear that adding a new “science” will take time away from “real” math and science. In my opinion, the US K-12 math and science curriculum has been frozen in time. It’s not relevant or real anymore, and needs a vast overhaul. But there are lots of forces at work to keep the status quo definitions of what kids are taught. And I do mean to draw a distinction between what students are taught and what they learn. For too many young people, what they learn is that math is boring, difficult, and not relevant, and science is about memorizing arcane terms. This is just a shame and waste.

2. Fear that computer science is too hard to teach in K-12. People worry that teachers are already stressed and stretched, that there aren’t enough computer science teachers, and that computer science is just something best left to colleges. That’s just a cop out. There are lots of teachers who learn to teach all kinds of difficult subjects – no one is born ready to teach chemistry or how to play the oboe, but people learn to do it all the time. Plus, there are computer languages and development tools for all ages, and lots of support on the web for people to try them out.

Please read this article – it covers a wide range of options and ideas for adding this very important subject to the lives of young people who deserve a relevant, modern education! Overhauling Computer Science Education

Sylvia

Reasonableness as a roadblock to change
Who hasn’t heard something like this — “I totally believe in technology and project-based learning. But my administration is really conservative, test scores are down, and my principal doesn’t like that kind of airy-fairy nonsense. Besides, five years ago we tried it and half the teachers used “project time” as a smoke break. So I was thinking that after testing is over I would have the kids do a project where they use vocabulary words and make a PowerPoint or do something with technology. I can probably squeeze the whole thing into 3 days. That way I can say it’s got language arts skills, 21st century skills, it won’t take too much time, and no one will get upset.“

Reasonable compromise or watered-down status quo with technology tacked on?

The problem is that by being reasonable, educators pre-compromise themselves out of strong, defendable positions. Project-based learning is a strong position to come from. There is research on how to do it, why to do it, and lots of examples of success. But by compromising even before you get to the negotiation, you lose out. You have watered down your ability to create conditions of success, and you have lost your negotiating power.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” – George Bernard Shaw

Most likely when you get to the actual planning, the people you thought would be impressed by your reasonableness stun you by not appreciating it at all. They want MORE compromise. In your eyes, they are unreasonable. You’ve already compromised (in your head) and now there’s no more to give. How come they get to be unreasonable when you’ve worked so hard before the meeting even started? It’s not fair!

You must practice the art of being unreasonable.

The art of being unreasonable

• Dream big.
• Come to the negotiation with a plan that meets all your needs and only your needs, with justification for them. You can compromise later from a place of power.
• Don’t play fair. Kids lives are at stake. For example, take kids into a meeting and have them present. It’s hard to say no to cute 8 year olds. (This is not about doing illegal or unethical things!)
• Acknowledge other people’s fears but label them as fears, not roadblocks or reasons to change the plan. Invite them to participate as your plan unfolds, so they can see that their fears are unfounded.
• Just because you understand other people’s arguments doesn’t mean you have to accept or act on them. That’s what reasonable people do. The other side isn’t accepting your arguments; you don’t have to accept theirs. Remember, you are unreasonable — see how freeing that is!
• Find others who believe in the same things you do and create a personal support system.
• Don’t be a martyr. If your plan is getting crushed and it’s just not going to happen, walk away. Come back with a bigger and better one.

Be unreasonable, not a pain
I know. You are saying, “I work with unreasonable people all the time! It’s not pleasant! They think they know everything, everyone resents it and figures out sneaky little ways to sabotage the plan. I want to be seen as fair, so that everyone will want to work with me, not against me.”

Everyone wants to be liked. Educators are probably the nicest people of all. Would it be so bad if people thought of you as a rebel, a dreamer, or a force of nature instead of just “nice”? Add a few new adjectives to your personal profile. You might be surprised that not only will people still like you, they will respect you more. Allow your unreasonableness to come from a place of righteous power and promoting student welfare, not anger or self-promotion. Anyway, nobody likes a pushover.

“You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?” — George Bernard Shaw

Go ahead, you have my permission, be unreasonable.

Sylvia

“In a role reversal, Ms. O’Bryant and other teachers at Brick Avon Academy are getting pointers from their students this year as part of an unusual teacher training program at 19 low-performing Newark schools.

The lesson learned by Ms. O’Bryant? “It makes you think about really hearing the kids,” she said. “You can learn from them. They have their own language.”

The training program, which is supported by a federal grant, is being run by the National Urban Alliance for Effective Education, a nonprofit group based in Syosset, N.Y. During a daylong workshop, teachers were instructed by the group’s trainer, Eyka Stephens, to watch their students teach mock lessons, study their methods and language, and discuss together what works (and what does not).” (Read more…)

Why does this work? It’s not because the kids are delivering the content better – it’s because of the sense of community and collaboration that’s developed as the learner/teacher roles blur.

Sylvia

So my point of view is not focused on technology, but uses technology as a lens to change the culture of a school – to encourage collaboration between teachers and students where the learning is being co-created – to give students opportunities to do meaningful and important work, and what schools can do to encourage those kinds of learning environments.

A prevalent view of education is that young people are empty vessels and schools simply open up their heads and pour in knowledge. Unfortunately this is a vision of education that is not serving us well in the 21^st century. For a few students, this clearly works, but for many, this is a futile effort — made worse by an increasing focus on testing a few subjects at the expense of high-interest subjects like art and music.

Project-based and experiential learning has been around for a long time. You might say that the classroom is the new-fangled technology here. You certainly don’t see lion cubs sitting in desks in rows. For thousands of years people learned skills through apprenticeship and showing that they could do simple tasks, and gradually more complex ones until they became the masters.

Projects are not simply longer versions of traditional school-work, nor are they crafts. The presence of glue and scissors does not create a project. Nor is a project simply following a recipe.

It’s interesting that the word “project” is used both for the process and the finished product. And it’s important that it remain true to both. The process – the planning, production, construction, sharing is crucial. A project needs to be personally meaningful to the student – more than just for a grade. Having an audience that extends beyond your classmates and teacher is great for this. A project should not have a right answer (or one answer).

One question from the audience asked how arts could be incorporated into projects. My response was that students will naturally incorporate their own aesthetic into projects they care about. Respecting that is crucial.

Arts teachers know this, but it’s hard to articulate. Our culture places arts on a lower level than “academic” work. Like art, projects require judgment to assess, which means that the teacher has to be trusted to make those judgements.

Our experience with Generation YES  is that when kids are challenged and guided with expertise, they rise to the challenge and exceed expectations. In our schools we ask students to shoulder the burden of changing education with technology. It’s not a surprise to me when these students step up and regard this responsibility with great seriousness. PBL needs to be a school-wide culture shift – don’t forget that students are the key stakeholders. You can’t change culture by just telling teachers to change.

One problem with PBL is it can get very burdensome to the teacher. Share the burden. Allow students to help with the logistics, planning, even assessment. Don’t let yourself be the bottleneck that leads to being overwhelmed and then to failure. Good intentions go out the window when you have 300 projects to grade and you are the only one looking at them.

Students should be asked to be allies, advocates and leaders in our collective effort to make civilization better. They want to help. They need our guidance and wisdom, and we need their enthusiasm, passion and buy in. We make each other better.

Sylvia

Subscribe to this blog
>> in your favorite blog reader
>> by email
>> via Facebook

It’s one thing to know that you have wireless in all your schools, but do you really know if it’s useful? That it reaches every classroom? That when the 26th device logs in, the whole system breaks? Or that the new filtering software is so aggressive that almost every search ends up with a “NOT ALLOWED” message? That you have brand new projectors, but no projector bulbs? Hey, you know those IWBs you installed in every classroom? Did you also know that someone locked up the box of special pens somewhere and no one can find them?

Is there a a way to move beyond the traditional “technology capacity” survey that counts hardware and software?

Yes, I think there is, you just have to ask. But be prepared for the onslaught of reality!

I think technology capacity breaks down into three parts:

1. Inventory – do things actually exist, how many, etc.
2. Use – do people know about them, trust them, and use them
3. Reliability – are things easy to access, in working condition, reliable and if there are problems, can they get help quickly.

Part #1 is pretty traditional and still important – how much, how many, etc. I think most schools have a handle on #1. If not, get counting!

But if you want to be brave and ask further, how about these questions?

• Network server space - Can it be used by students and teachers. Do people know how? Is it easy to access, reliable, and is there enough space? Do files suddenly go missing? When someone runs out of space can they get more?
• Email – Do teachers check their email (how often)? Is it reliable, or do emails or attachments disappear? Do students have email, use email for classwork, and can they access provided email at school and home? Does the mail filter label too many things as spam or make suspected spam hard to retrieve? Can teachers request email senders to be put on a whitelist?
• Web access – Beyond calculated bandwidth, is connectivity good in all classrooms, or does bandwidth fluctuate? Can you log into network reliably  and can multiple machines log in at once, or are devices “kicked off” at random? Is filtering non-intrusive; can teachers easily request to unblock something and are those requests handled quickly?
• Hardware - Beyond “how many” – does equipment work, can you get cables and other required parts? If there are consumables (like video tapes or projector bulbs) can you get more?. Can you easily move files from cameras, scanners, recording devices, etc into other computers for processing? Can you get parts and repairs when needed?
• Software – Beyond “the list” – Are versions up to date, and can you get upgrades when you need them? Do you have software to create projects (other than slideshows and word processing) – video editing, animation, programming, simulations, audio editing, graphic programs? Do you have enough, are they age appropriate, and are the computers powerful enough to run them?
• Tech support response - Beyond average response time, what is the average time for issues being fixed to the satisfaction of the person having the problem? Is there a standard way that problems are reported, tracked, and fixed? Do people know how to request help, and is the system working – or do you have a low problem rate because everyone has given up hope of ever getting help?

I’d love to hear your additions to this list – I’m sure I’ve forgotten many important things!

Sylvia

Join the fine folks at TakingITGlobal for some exciting professional development on global education and project-based learning. Starting this month, TIGed is offering two accredited e-courses in technology-enabled global education for teachers around the world!

TakingITGlobal is a youth community site with over 140,000 members worldwide. The site tools allow members to create or join global projects, with community and sharing features. To support teachers, they offer TIGed, a community with resources and shared space to plan or learn more about how to support global education.

Starting September 14, 2011: TIGed is offering two e-courses: “Introduction to Global Education” and “Introduction to Global Project-Based Learning.” The first course familiarizes participants with the driving pedagogies behind global education and guides them in exploring practical strategies for globalizing their curricula. The second course builds on the first by exploring how global education can best merge with project-based learning strategies, including how to use online tools to effectively collaborate with international partners. You can learn more about what is covered in each course by visiting the TakingITGlobal Professional Development homepage.

The first e-course starts September 14th, so don’t delay! Register today to secure your spot by visiting the TIGed Professional Development site.

Sounds fun! Don’t miss out -

Sylvia

Two things that are going to matter greatly are: 1) decisions about setting up the iPads and 2) what you expect the students to do with them.

Management
Very broadly speaking, the iPads can either be set up with group management software or they can be set up more loosely managed (more like the way a normal iPad is set up). Either way you can set the profile to not be able to access anything rated “adult” in the App Store, and not allow any paid App downloads from the iTunes account.

The managed way you have more “control” – some adult will see any download on any machine, can more easily mass purchase Apps, they will be easier to revert to an initial condition, etc. It also matters whether they will be handed out randomly to students or assigned a single user and whether they can take them home.

The managed way makes it easier for adults to monitor and control, the individual way makes it a more useful personal device, but with more ability to “get in trouble” – a typical tradeoff.

What is the “DO”?
Is there an expectation that the students will use the iPads for any “work” or creative application – or are they strictly information appliances? Gary Stager says, “if your primary metaphor for a computer is looking stuff up, it should be no surprise when kids look up inappropriate stuff.”

Hopefully there is some expectation that the iPad will be more than a research tool. If that’s true, there should be a few paid apps for the students – free apps and browsing are not going to cut it for “real work”.

It matters greatly what you expect the students are going to do with the “stuff” they create/find on the iPad. The only ways in and out of an iPad are through the Mail App and the “Cloud”, meaning apps that use online storage. Will the students be allowed to set up the Mail app with school-supplied email accounts? What about non-school supplied email? Can they use apps like Evernote or Dropbox for file management?

If you use web apps and students will be under 13, you need to find out right away what these apps require – many teachers tell kids not to lie about their age on the Internet, and in the next breath tell them to lie about their birthdays so they can use web apps. We strongly urge our schools never do that (and we talk about why directly with the kids.)

Even if you don’t tell them, some will figure out how to set up the Mail app to access their personal email, unless all that is disabled too. (Which makes the iPad a thin, shiny brick.)

Browsing and cybersafety
Internet safety and digital citizenship are not things you can just deal with separately. They are completely dependent on what YOU CAN DO – which is completely dependent on how the iPads have been configured and what the expectations are for doing work. Even if the kids have used computers, the iPads are just different enough from a computer that you can’t depend on previous training and rules.

The browser is where the iPad is most like a regular computer. Safety/rules/filtering/blocking when using the iPad browser are exactly like any other computer on campus. The kids should be let in on what these policies are, not just the “don’t do x” stuff, but the why. The older the student, the more you have to let them in on the policy decisions so they can buy into them and support them. The older the student, the more the actions of peers will influence behavior, not the words of adults.

You can of course talk about intellectual property and citing sources, and practice saving images, URLs, etc. as they do research.

Where to start
Are the students allowed to download free apps from the App Store? If so, teach them how to use the ratings, categories and reviews to find good ones. If these are personal machines, teach them how to use and manage bookmarks in Safari. Practice setting the wallpaper and moving apps into organized folders. (Setting the wallpaper seems trivial but actually hits a lot of basic functionality and allows you to talk about using pictures that are too personal.)

Let them teach each other useful things they’ve found and figured out. They will find amazing stuff. You will need the cable that goes from the iPad to a projector. Get them used to sharing to a group – the wallpaper of them kissing the boyfriend will quickly be replaced.

Many schools start their iPad lessons with the school’s AUP (Acceptable Use Policy.) However, you better read it first. We find that most AUPs are pretty miserably written for kids (and parents) and it’s a waste of time to go over them in any detail. It’s a crime that these are often the only message that parents get about technology – incomprehensible and punitive. Then we ask them to sign that they understand and will obey – there’s some vision of 21st century learning, eh?… (another rant for back-school time…). Seriously – Have the kids write their own rules – usually they will come up with a list that is just fine to start with.

But treat the rules as a living document. Expect to tweak them from time to time – in many AUPs for example, there are rules about not changing settings of the computers. For an iPad, you just have to get into the settings. Don’t just let your rules get stale and breaking them become the only way to get work done. If “bad things” happen, let the kids discuss and amend the rules to cover it.

More complex questions to deal with
Are students allowed to connect to a home computer and add a second iTunes account attached to mom’s credit card? Don’t assume the students won’t figure this out or that this will only happen in affluent communities. What about push notifications or allowing an app to use your location – useful in Google Earth, creepy in Foursquare. What about apps like Skype or chat apps like KakaoTalk. Do the school phone rules apply to iPads that are being used like a phone? If current school rules simply ban phones, you will likely have a gap in your policies since in many ways iPads are more like smartphones than computers.

If the policies are too restrictive, you are going to have to try to get buy-in from the students on why things are locked down – because they will immediately start running into brick walls where the usefulness is diminished – and you will end up playing whack-a-mole with kids who will quickly find ways around the restrictions (many for entirely justified reasons).

The big thing I haven’t mentioned is this… you can’t talk about this with just the students… the teachers have to be on the same page and understand these issues too. Students and teachers should be learning and making decisions about implementation as a team.

In the best case scenario, this not only creates a better educated community, but you will be walking the talk of a collaborative learning community, where everyone is a stakeholder and participant.

In the worst case scenario, if you do some cursory PD and hope it trickles down to the students, or the iPads are so locked down that they are useless — kids and teachers will end up getting blamed for the “failure” of the iPad program. That would just be sad, not to mention a huge waste of scarce dollars.

Sylvia

Subscribe
>> in your favorite blog reader
>> by email
>> via Facebook
>> follow me on Twitter

It’s been an amazing learning experience for me every year, and I’m looking forward to learning more this year from the participants and speakers.

Constructing Modern Knowledge is a unique professional development opportunity for educators – it’s not lots of speakers talking at you, we have one AMAZING speaker each day, leaving lots of time for project work and of course social activities! In past years, educators have built robots, programmed games, created amazing animated stories and songs, worked with stop motion and time lapse photography, and lots of other interesting projects.

This year’s speakers include: Jonathan Kozol – author, activist and education reformer, Derrick Pitts – astronomer from the Franklin Institute. Lella Gandini of the Reggio Emilia school movement, and Mitchel Resnick – head of the MIT Media Lab. And of course Gary Stager who is organizing and leading the event.

Additional resources

Tinkering resources – books, websites, hardware, software, and projects to encourage learning by tinkering

CMK construction materials (PDF) – open-ended creativity software and construction materials CMK attendees will be using.

Posts about previous CMK events:

• Constructing Modern Knowledge 2010
• Tinkering School
• Constructing Modern Knowledge 2009
• Constructing Modern Knowledge 2008

But there are still lots of questions about this. It’s really more than just about this one technology – you can ponder about any recording device in the classroom from video cameras and phones to many laptops that have this capability.

Some questions this brings up:

• Should a teacher be asked before recording? Does the law require consent, or merely notification?
• What if the student has special needs for recording and playing back? Does it matter if there is an IEP in place or not?
• Does a teacher have to have a “valid” reason to say no? If they simply don’t like the idea, does this negate the student’s right to an accessible education? A teacher couldn’t take a student’s glasses away just because they don’t like them.
• Do wiretapping laws apply?
• What if other students in the class are recorded? Is that fair/legal? Might it stop open classroom discussion?
• If a student does record a lecture, does anyone (administrators, parents, etc.) have the right to ask for that recording?
• Are there restrictions on what the student can do with the recording, such as post it online or give it to other students?
• Are there any restrictions for teachers recording their own class? Do they need student/parent/school permission? Who owns that recording and what can it be used for?
• Can a teacher record their own lecture and put it online? Can they sell it?

Common courtesy and knowing the law may not be enough to answer these questions!

Sylvia

Isn’t it best to offer a balance of all different kinds of learning opportunities for students?… Can’t we have open-ended problem-solving AND show the kids how to do the hard parts when they get in trouble?
Now, I would never tell a teacher what to do, it’s too easy for me to type a bunch of words and I don’t have to be there every day. But I think you have to consider the unexpected consequences of striving for balance between two opposing theories of learning – instructionism and constructionism.

To illustrate this, let’s imagine a playground game of hide and seek. On Monday, when everyone has hidden and the seeker finishes the count, he or she looks up… and at that moment, the teacher steps in and points out where everyone is hiding. On Tuesday, the teacher stands back and says nothing. On Wednesday, the teacher helpfully points out the hiders, on Thursday, says nothing.

What do you think happens on Friday?

I’m pretty sure that the seeker would immediately look to the teacher and ask where everyone is hiding. Or maybe everyone would just refuse to play since there’s no point to it. On the previous days, the teacher has trained them how to get the answer. Even with the “balance” in game play, one outweighs the other. There is no balance possible, because the teacher’s authority causes the balance to permanently shift. It’s the very essence of disempowerment. Teacher power and authority is the 800 pound gorilla siting on the end of a see-saw.

I believe that for many of the same reasons, the attempt to explicitly show students how to solve problems becomes a roadblock when you suddenly turn around and demand that they figure things out for themselves. It just sounds like a trick, and if they wait long enough, you will give them the answers and move on. Children are pretty pragmatic about these things.

I still think you need balance…
I could almost go along with the “balance” argument if the world of U.S. school math weren’t so unbalanced. I would guess that 95% of all math taught in all classrooms across the US is direct instruction aimed at the “skill” level and memorizing the right algorithm to solve problems most likely to be found on standardized tests. So there’s no balance there to start with – the only way to achieve “balance” is to do more open-ended, student-led inquiry about math, solving real problems (not textbook or test prep problems), not telling students what the right answers are, etc. And do LOTS more of it. Then we can talk about balance.

But at least the ability to stop and replay the video gives the student control – isn’t that what we always look for in student-centered learning?
Here’s the tradeoff – is student control over the pace worth losing student control of the entire process? They get to choose how quickly they are force-fed someone else’s representation of a process instead of creating their own representation in their heads. Asking the student to give up control of their own thought process to absorb a one-size-fits-all delivery of information requires a large degree of compliance on the student’s part. In my book, the ability to control the pace pales in comparison. I think a teacher would have to weigh these very different kinds of control and whether the trade-off is worth it.

Why shouldn’t we teach students a good way to solve a problem, what’s the point of letting them fumble around?
When we tell a student the “right way” – we are really telling them that math ability is primarily about compliance. This is about power, and we lose a lot of students in these power struggles.

Margaret Mead said, “emphasis has shifted from learning to teaching, from the doing to the one who causes it to be done, from spontaneity to coercion, from freedom to power. With this shift has come… dry pedagogy, regimentation, indoctrination, manipulation, & propaganda”. (thanks to Ryan Bretag for this fortuitous quote)

What we call “good students” are compliant students who don’t call this power structure into question. (By the way, this was me – even when I saw other ways to solve problems I knew not to say anything. I amused myself by solving problems in alternate ways, then would write down the answer the way I knew the teacher wanted.) If you don’t think students are acutely aware of the power structures in school, you are underestimating students.

Students “fumbling around” is actually where the learning happens – and there’s no shortcut for this process.

Why waste time letting students “discover” everything. They aren’t going to re-invent the Pythagorean theorem by themselves.
It’s a straw man argument about inquiry-based, constructivist education that it’s “illegal” to lecture. Whenever I hear this I imagine a scene where the constructivist police burst through a classroom door and wrestle a teacher to the floor who was just explaining to a student how to do something. The difference is that explanations should serve to naturally move a problem-solving process along, not be the whole lesson.

In this kind of classroom, the teacher’s role is crucial – by posing problems that lead to big ideas and steering a class as they solve problems. By “being less helpful” as Dan Meyer says. (He doesn’t say don’t help at all!) This is not wasting time, it’s letting the students build the knowledge in their heads and acknowledging the fact that this takes time. It also takes time to learn how to teach this way. It’s not the case that the teacher is off taking a smoke break while the kids do this on their own. The teacher’s role is crucial – it’s difficult work and takes years to master.

This exact question is discussed by Piaget as related in a brilliant essay by Alfie Kohn – What Works Better than Traditional Math Instruction from his book The Schools Our Children Deserve. (I can’t improve on his explanation of why traditional math instruction is failing our children – please read this essay.)

So isn’t this the “flipped classroom” that Khan Academy proposes?
People are associating Khan Academy with the “flipped classroom” – something I talked about in this post (‘Teach Naked’ and complacency natives). In a so-called flipped classroom, the lecture takes place outside the classroom and classroom time is spent on discussion and problem solving. Students might watch the video at home (or in the car, bus, or anywhere) and then there would be a lot of classroom time freed up for discussion, working on individual problems, or whatever else needs to be done. That’s the theory, anyway.

So, first off, do you believe:

• Students will actually watch the lecture?
• The percentage that do watch the lecture will be any different than those who currently do their homework?
• The percentage of kids who zone out, multi-task, or don’t understand will be any different than during a classroom lecture?

But I’m willing to let all these assumptions slide so we can move on. Let’s pretend that most of the students will listen/watch a math lecture on their own time.

Can you disconnect the lecture from the problem solving? Khan Academy videos have no context outside of class – other than that they match the standardized tests. As Derek Muller points out (see Part 1), these videos may have the unintended consequence of cementing incorrect models as students assume that they understand, thus making the teacher’s job that much harder.

Swapping the timing of certain teaching practices seems a minor logistics issue, at best. Moving the timing of the lecture doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a lecture, and not even a lecture about interesting stuff. Most of these “lectures” are simply worked out example problems. Do we think that a student who doesn’t “get it” in the classroom is more likely to “get it” on the bus? The main issue is the reliance on information delivery to trigger understanding.

This also assumes that you are replacing one lecture with no feedback with another lecture with no feedback. That’s pretty insulting to LOTS of teachers. I won’t assume that ALL teachers who lecture are bad, or that there aren’t a thousand ways to intersperse lecture with checks for understanding. There are no raised hands in the Khan Academy, no questions, no teachable moments, no interesting asides. You have one interaction, and one interaction only — the ability to play, stop, and rewind.

If I were a huge fan of making videos about how to solve problems, I’d certainly try to make it more student-centered by allowing students to make the videos. The process of figuring out how to clearly explain a concept would give a student time to reflect about the process in depth. They say teaching is the best way to learn, so why let Mr. Khan have all the fun!

But seriously, here’s a conundrum — the art of leading a productive learning discussion is much more difficult than lecturing. Are we to expect that the teacher who couldn’t even do the lecture part is suddenly going to be able to lead a productive discussion about math? It would seem to me that the teachers most likely to see Khan Academy videos as a good substitute for their own lectures are also the least likely to be able to take advantage of the classroom time for any substantive discussion that would help students.

Let’s not even talk about what happens if 3, 4 or 5 teachers each assign a 40 minute lecture to listen to every night – so if this model actually works… it’s impossible. Don’t you love models of teaching where successful adoption assures failure?

Nothing like this has ever existed before, it’s so exciting!
Really now? Didn’t you ever watch Donald Duck in MathMagic Land or Sunrise Semester? The amount of acclaim for Khan Academy is, in my view, way over the top and only reflects our acceptance of math myths as drivers for pedagogy and wishful thinking that there is a easy answer for learning.

I’m just glad to see that technology is finally useful in education.
I’ve seen Khan hyped as a transformative use of technology, but. I can’t even begin to understand how turning the computer into a VHS player is seen as transformative. I know, I know — he’s got quizzes too. Answer ten questions and you can resume playing the video. Brring, brrring… 1988 called and they want their CAI (Computer Aided Instruction) back.

But the Khan Academy videos show students how to solve the math problems that will be on tests – don’t we want students to do better on tests?
That is the heart of it – do we care about kids learning math or doing well on tests? They aren’t the same thing.

These videos have millions of hits on YouTube – it proves that students need this help and are searching for it.
Yes, it does. It shows that many students really do want to do well, and doing well is defined as passing tests. We have a nation where lots of students are working their hardest to do something that matters little. Imagine if we asked students to do math that was actually useful and interesting!

My teacher is terrible and these videos help me.
I’m sorry. I’m glad you’ve found something that helps. Nobody is trying to take away something that is helping you.

Salman Khan is a master teacher and shouldn’t everyone get the best teacher?
Salman Khan obviously has a gift for clearly explaining how he understands complex computations. Being a teacher, however, is more than explaining stuff. When a student has misconceptions, they often need to talk through them, and a teacher SHOULD be an expert in recognizing those misconceptions and steering students through those rough waters. There SHOULD be a lot of listening involved. I’m not excusing bad teaching practice – far from it.

You’ve cherry-picked your research and sources.
Absolutely true. I said at the beginning this wasn’t going to be a literature review. I’ve included a few quotes and references that influence my thinking. Kamii, Papert, and Kohn appear often. Between them they have decades of work, dozens of books, and research to support it all. If you disagree, I hope at least you’ll read further. Their ideas form a connective network with other great educators from Piaget to Dewey to Vygotsky to Freire and many more.

Just to pile on, I’m looking forward to Alfie Kohn’s new book, Feel-Bad Education . . . And Other Contrarian Essays on Children & Schooling. I’m also loving his recent column, What does education research really tell us? He relates new research about how studies done in the short term often support the use of traditional teaching practices (like direct instruction and homework for practicing skills). However, as these studies are refined and the students followed for longer periods (months or years instead of weeks), these traditional practices have zero, or even negative results. Yup, I <3 Alfie.

I like teaching in a more open-ended way – but no one understands.
Many teachers struggle with these math myths and the cultural expectations of how math should be taught. Even if they want to teach in more open-ended way, they are often alone, facing off with parents, colleagues and administrators. Any attempt to teach math as less skill-based is met with skepticism, if not outright hostility. Even research is met with a “… yes, but, I believe it’s important” as if it’s a matter of opinion. It’s almost impossible not to give into that pressure, and as a consequence many teachers give up.

I for one would never encourage a teacher to martyr themselves in a no-win situation, especially with the overemphasis on standardized testing and current punitive politicized atmosphere.

As far as parents go, though, I think that most parents really do want what’s best for their children and many can be convinced. Teachers may find allies among parents who are at their wits end with battles over math homework or with parents who watch their children go into school natural learners and come back hating it. Some parents are going to buy fraction flashcards for their kids no matter what you say or do, that won’t change. Try showing them this: Finland’s Educational Success? The Anti-Tiger Mother Approach

Find allies wherever you can. Teachers are doing amazing things all over the US and around the world. These days, it’s possible to develop colleagues who you may never meet in person, but might be your pedagogical soulmates.

You must not know much about real schools – haven’t you seen the list of standards that math teachers have to meet? The expectations for the test? The 400 page textbook? We have to get the kids through this stuff and there’s just no time for exploring, discovery, or anything else. Hoping that things will change someday doesn’t help me or my kids today.
You are right – the need for Khan Academy is completely fits the way we assume math has to be learned and taught. The “if it’s Tuesday it must be exponents” model is failing us. That has to change.

I’ll say a bit more about this Monday… Someday dilemma in my next (and last) post of this series.

Sylvia