We Work Together, But Test Alone

I am currently enrolled in a combined technology certifications course. Upon completion of a number of certification-targeted classroom instruction hours and after taking multiple practice tests, we, isolated from any and all digital and human resources (even our wallets and purses are not allowed), are subjected to an intense, time-regulated multiple choice test for each certification. To be fair, the tests include a few "simulations" which are little more than drag and drop exercises. The test questions are determined by the certification authority, proctored by an employee of the instructional organization, and administered remotely by Pearson VUE.

Two points:

• technology certification instruction. Think about that for a minute then visualize a standard 1980's classroom configuration. Add a computer on each desk. The instructor's desk is to the right front of the room so as not to block the information being projected from the overhead projector onto the screen at the front of the room. For the most part the instructor projects and reads from the certification authority's text interrupting only to address questions that are thankfully allowed at any point. Students may observe what is being read on the screen at the front of the room or follow along on their personal computers. The text does contain many reinforcing graphical representations. Periodically within the test are computer-based practical exercises that attempt to replicate the real thing using an artificial user interface that in itself requires familiarization. Infrequently (two in a two-month period) a half-day "lab" is conducted. The labs represent limited reality, e.g., setting up a network switch that is not connected to a network. Somehow what we've learned in the past 30 years about pedagogies, instructional technologies, and integrating technology into classrooms and curriculums have bypassed the exulted organizations that control technology certifications and those that instruct toward certification achievement.


• isolated from any and all digital and human resources. The work world is all about sharing, communicating, and collaborating. In a very long and varied career, I have only experienced one job wherein I was unable to correspond with or seek help from others in a timely manner. It was when I was a high school teacher. Not that help wasn't available overtime, just when most needed. Anyway, for the most part, the work world now expects, even demands, teamwork. Recently I read an article that in a sentence capsulized the way work success has evolved. "We all know who invented the light bulb but who invented the iPhone?" Yet we continue to test knowledge in isolation rather than performance within a group. The future lies in developing and administering team performance tests that also measure individual knowledge and collaborative acuity.

Cognitive Science and Learning

Cognitive science can reshape the way we teach.

Highlights:

Lectures = bad
Active learning = good

Praise = bad
Challenges = good

Rereading, highlighting, underlining = bad
Self-quizzes, flashcards, written reflections = good

Big exams, term papers = bad
Short quizzes, frequent writing assignments = good

Obstacles to K-12 Student Success

In yesterday's post, Diane Ravitch references a survey of the nation's teachers of the year http://dianeravitch.net/2015/05/20/teachers-of-the-year-say-that-family-stress-and-poverty-are-biggest-obstacles/). She quotes Lyndsey Layton in the Washington Post:

The greatest barriers to school success for K-12 students have little to do with anything that goes on in the classroom, according to the nation’s top teachers: It is family stress, followed by poverty, and learning and psychological problems.

So the problem isn't due to "low expectations, bad teachers, teachers’ unions, tenure, seniority, and the need for competition and accountability" (Diane's words). Duh! Any of us who had even the vaguest interest in education knew or suspected this all along. Ah, but Arnie and the states won't go down easily. They will argue that, of course, teachers will deflect blame.

At the end of her blog, Diane asks, "Why don’t Congress and the states listen to the experts?" Yes, why? Members of the medical profession are not held accountable for increasing incidents of cancer, maiming automobile accidents, gunshots wounds, and on and on. Yet we listen to them when they site causes. Lawyers (those practicing law, not those writing laws) are not held accountable for the crime rate, yet we respect their opinions. We don't blame architects for the destruction caused by an earthquake, yet we listen to their ideas on building earthquake resistant structures. Go ahead, name another profession whose members' opinions are at least respected. OK, maybe law enforcement recently but I can't think of another.

TPACK

I became interested in the TPACK model before it became popular outside the elevated level of "higher education". It was then called TCPK but the acronym opened into the same terms rearranged, Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge. with, what is obvious now-a-days, the center of the "framework" representing the intersection of the three knowledges as the ideal. The founding professors derived the framework from their work with faculty in higher education with the intent to broaden teacher preparation curricula. The concept naturally lends itself to teaching and learning at all levels and some would say has placed a significant burden on the already practicing K-12 bunch.

The question that keeps coming to mind is one regarding what pedagogical knowledge is. According to Koehler (one of the architects of the framework), pedagogical knowledge can be defined as "a generic form of knowledge that is involved in all issues of student learning, classroom management, lesson plan development and implementation, and student evaluation. It includes knowledge about techniques or methods to be used in the classroom; the nature of the target audience; and strategies for evaluating student understanding. A teacher with deep pedagogical knowledge understands how students construct knowledge and acquire skills; develop habits of mind and positive dispositions towards learning." Does it not seem then that an educator with some depth of pedagogical knowledge would inherently possess sufficient technological and content knowledge? Why the need to remove technological and content knowledge from pedagogical knowledge? I can only surmise that framework assumes a less broad definition of pedagogical knowledge than that defined by Koehler. I find other definitions to be even broader to the point of nebulousness but none narrower.

I conclude that then the essence and value of the TPACK is that teachers need to know how to teach, know about what they are teaching and know about technologies applicable to the subject matter being taught. But knowledge is passive. What is missing is instruction and guidance as to how to put it all together to the benefit of the learning experience. Since the first letter in the framework represents technological knowledge one would think that teachers should start with the available technologies and work these then into the subject matter and pedagogy. This is how we integrated technology into the classroom during 2000's and it proved not to be very successful. Execution must begin with planning and the planning must begin with the learning goals and activities in the content area and then the teacher selects the digital tools from available resources consistent with her/his methods and style that will best help the teacher and students meet the learning goals.

Just One Philosophy of Teaching...

or is it more a philosophy of learning?

I guess I am philosophically a constructivist or constructionist if you will. As pedagogy, constructivism appeals to me intellectually and practically and I make every effort to facilitate the learning experience according to those broad tenets. That is how I learn and that is how I prefer to be taught but I also respect the need for others to learn differently. I strive to develop a positive and open learning environment, to guide students toward understanding and developing their own learning styles and philosophies and to help them realize their potential as active, reflective, and evolving critical thinkers. However, on occasion, hopefully only when the situation dictates, I tend to revert to a more didactic approach, the result of my military experience, I am sure, wherein understanding often took a backseat to rote process memorization and practice. I find that this approach has its benefits, especially when teaching technology applications and processes which frequently involve sequential exactness.

My mantra when facilitating technology professional development sessions is that the key to enhancing student achievement lies at the confluence of curricular content, differential pedagogies and technology integration--that the interoperability of these three elements will foster engaged learning, encourage students to accept accountability and responsibility for their own education and consequently prepare them for success in the 21st Century. I believe that and I believe that my enthusiasm for learning, developing authentic, engaging curricula, customizing my teaching style to fit the situation and student and integrating appropriate technological tools has allowed me to have a long-term positive effect on students. It has taken me a while to figure out how to combine these. As a technology teacher, initially I naturally began by focusing on the technology (the tool) and proceeded to integrate the content into the technology. When I was teaching word processing, for example, the focus would be on the application--"click here," "click there"--and not on purposeful output. The tool (technology) was driving my teaching. I have long since learned that the focus belongs on communicating through writing and that the learning process should provide students with opportunities to express themselves by way of various technology tools. The results are exciting and rewarding. I am a firm believer in project-based learning. I experience great satisfaction from facilitating and encouraging students as they experience realistic self-discovery successes yet I remain aware of my obligation to guide them in their journey toward discovery of self.

More broadly, my extra-curricular goals as a teacher include helping students learn to be authentic, to accept who they are, to find the right career, to hold life, learning and their faith as precious, and to make the right choices. Students bring varying and rich cultures and experiences to the classroom. As a teacher, I believe that not only I am obligated to celebrate and build upon these cultural and experiential platforms but to help students to go beyond in order to develop a multicultural word view. As St. John Bosco wrote, "Instruction is but an accessory, like a game; knowledge never makes a man because it does not directly touch the heart. It gives more power in the exercise of good or evil; but alone it is an indifferent weapon, wanting guidance."

Organizational Development (OD) – a Systems View

The traditional view or organizational development is a linear approach: (1) symptom analysis (identification of one or more dysfunctions that inhibit effectiveness); (2) diagnose the dysfunction(s) (determine the cause(s) of the dysfunction(s)); (3) intervene to correct the dysfunction(s); and (4) check to see that the dysfunction(s) are gone and effectiveness enhanced. This is, of course, a simplistic condensation of a rather complex process derived from the traditional standard definition of OD developed by Richard Beckhard in his 1969 book, Organizational Development Strategies and Models, wherein he states, “Organization Development is an effort (1) planned, (2) organization-wide, and (3) managed from the top, to (4) increase organization effectiveness and health through (5) planned interventions in the organization's "processes," using behavioral-science knowledge”. In other words the objective was to find and fix non-productive issues.

In the years preceding 1969 and probably well into the 1970s, most organizations were relatively static. Systems were fairly well-defined—hierarchical structures established, roles enumerated, employment/union contracts agreed upon; processes and procedures published, controls in place—it was a tidy world. The OD practitioner/stakeholder team’s objective was to find the dysfunctions negatively affecting effectiveness and eliminate them through implementation of change with minimum operational disruption, management discomfort and employee dissatisfaction.

Despite recognition that modern dynamic organizations are of ambiguous structure; competing in a volatile world-wide market subject to various and numerous often conflicting and changing laws and regulations; made up of self-defining, self-regulating and diverse employee teams whose members may be physically separated; chasing ever-changing technologies; training and retraining employees at an exponential rate caused by dysfunction turnovers; dealing with greater community consciousness; and dealing less with unionization and rigidly defined job descriptions, OD practitioners have yet to settle on a new coherent definition of OD. Rapid and frequent change in modern organizations is their defining nature. However, the nature of change itself has not changed. Change continues to be rife with stress and anxieties and in this environment the linear approach to OD will only result in greater frustration. As the initial dysfunctions are in the process of being corrected a plethora of old symptoms will come to light and new ones identified. Obviously, dissecting and fixing piecemeal “ain’t gonna git it.” It is generally agreed within the field that a system-wide or holistic approach need be taken and a few new definitions have been offered:

“Organization Development is the attempt to influence the members of an organization to expand their candidness with each other about their views of the organization and their experience in it, and to take greater responsibility for their own actions as organization members. The assumption behind OD is that when people pursue both of these objectives simultaneously, they are likely to discover new ways of working together that they experience as more effective for achieving their own and their shared (organizational) goals. And that when this does not happen, such activity helps them to understand why and to make meaningful choices about what to do in light of this understanding.”
-- Neilsen, “Becoming an OD Practitioner”, Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall, 1984, pp. 2-3.

"Organization development is a system-wide application of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures, and processes for improving an organization's effectiveness."
-- Cummings and Worley, "Organization Development and Change", Sixth Edition, South-Western Publishing, 1997, p.2.

"Organization Development is a body of knowledge and practice that enhances organizational performance and individual development, viewing the organization as a complex system of systems that exist within a larger system, each of which has its own attributes and degrees of alignment. OD interventions in these systems are inclusive methodologies and approaches to strategic planning, organization design, leadership development, change management, performance management, coaching, diversity, and work/life balance."
-- Matt Minahan, MM & Associates, Silver Spring, Maryland

Explicit in all three definitions are that the goal is enhanced performance/effectiveness and that organizations must be viewed in the whole as organic systems. Implicit in the definitions is the absolute need for authentic and candid collaboration by all team members throughout the entire process. It seems that most practitioners agree, probably more by default than by studied experimentation, research and deliberation that the same in-practice processes apply to a systems approach as they did under older OD theories.

1. Contract with and gain commitment from key personnel


2. Establish the change team


3. Analyze systems to identify dysfunctions and/or unmet goals/objects of the systems


4. Determine likely causes of systems dysfunctions


5. Identify all the parts of the system that are negatively and positively affected by the dysfunctions


6. Organize additional change teams as needed; establish inter-team collaboration


7. Identify methodologies (as much as I detest the term, “interventions” if you will) designed to improve effectiveness of the organization and performance of its employees


8. Apply consensually selected multi-team methodologies to improve effectiveness while building internal ability to create sustainable change


9. Evaluate the effectiveness of the changes on the entire system, reinforce, recycle as needed

The primary difference is the recognition that any change to any one part of a system affects the other parts: people; culture; cliques; emotions; performance; structures (formal and informal); norms; values; attitudes; lines of communication; goals; objectives; standards; processes; products; structure; training; roles; other teams; etc. Such recognition will perforce engender system wide effectiveness and performance evaluations which will likely identify additional dysfunctions, dysfunctions even brought about by previous or ongoing changes.

Basic Functions of Management/Leadership

This is basically for my own edification and reminder reference as I have found that, over a very long career in diverse industries, these principles still hold. These are management tasks that must be performed to a more or lesser degree in all organizations. How a manager accomplishes the tasks is in the realm of management theory, a body of study and knowledge that continually evolves. The most recent trend in management theory seems to be a combination of customer/employee oriented factors involving coordination, communication and collaboration at the core (not unlike recent education trends) - mostly common sense. The race to develop adopted catch-phases that sell books might be more the driving force behind the theories than is the advancement of theory and practices. Some examples from recent books: "radical management"; "connected and engaged organization"; The Power of Pull; The Elastic Enterprise; "new management paradigm"; The Connected Company; and many others. This for another blog?

•  Planning (operational [tactical] and strategic):
  
  
  
  • Define where the organization is, identify a future ideal state then map how the company will move toward that future state.
  
  
  •  Outcomes:
    
    
    
    1. Ideal organizational vision, identity, culture, personality.
    
    
    2. Anticipated external environment (economy, government, etc.).
    
    
    3. Tactics and strategies.
    
    
    4. Timetable.
    
    
    5. Mission, goals and objectives.
    
    
    6. Resources needed.
    
    
    7. Marketing plan.
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


•  Organizing:
  
  
  
  • Organize resources (human and material) to accomplish mission, goals and objectives.
  
  
  • Outcomes:
    
    
    
    1. Organizational chart.
       
       
       
       1. Spans of control.
       
       
       2. Chain of command.
       
       
       3. Lines of authority.
       
       
       
       
    
    
    2. Departmentalization.
    
    
    3. Position descriptions.
       
       
       
       1. Duties and responsibilities.
       
       
       2. Detailed tasks, conditions and standards.
       
       
       3. Position authority.
       
       
       4. Delegation of authority to include hiring, firing, supervising, disciplining, ordering, purchasing, compensatory time, etc.
       
       
       
       
    
    
    4. Policies, processes, procedures, systems and rules.
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  


• Leading (Directing) toward mission, goal, objective and task achievement:
  
  
  
  • Decision making
  
  
  • Motivating
  
  
  • Rewarding
  
  
  • Disciplining
  
  
  • Compensating
  
  
  • Communicating/informing
  
  
  • Supervising
  
  
  • Supporting
  
  
  • Training, educating and orienting
  
  
  • Evaluating
  
  
  • Consistency
  
  
  
  


•  Staffing:
  
  
  
  • Position analysis
  
  
  • Human resource inventory
  
  
  • Identification of position skills, knowledges and abilities
  
  
  • Recruiting
  
  
  • Testing and interviewing
  
  
  • Hiring, promoting, transferring, adjusting pay, terminating
  
  
  • Training, educating and orienting
  
  
  • Evaluating
  
  
  • Consistency
  
  
  
  


• Controlling:
  
  
  
  • Assigning, evaluating, and regulating resources on an ongoing basis to accomplish the organization's goals:
    
    
    
    1. Measuring performance against position descriptions and standards.
    
    
    2. Evaluating and measuring compliance and progress with and regulating plans, policies, processes, procedures, systems, rules, regulations, ordinances, laws, project drawings, specifications and other contract documents and budgets.
    
    
    3. Ensuring that organizational activities are consistent, effective and efficient.
    
    
    4. Soliciting customer, vendor and employee feedback.
    
    
    5. Making necessary changes and taking corrective actions as needed in response to outcomes of the first four principles above.
    
    
    6. Managing change.
    
    
    
    
  
  
  
  

The Results Are In

There are good and bad urban public charter schools and there and good and bad urban non-charter public schools. Profound! Regardless of reformer and transformer interventions, mayoral control or not, instant principal and teacher schools, more money spent per student, more hours in the classroom, more alternative schools, less bureaucracy, less union interference, more firings and hirings, more school turn-arounds, closures and openings, and Arne's focus on whatever works, the infamous "gap" continues, whether it be the real or perceived gap between the our and other advanced nations' students or between disadvantaged and not-so-disadvantaged students. (Phew, and I surely missed a number of experiments.) So what does work? Why exactly do some school do better than others that yields significantly better test scores? And should the goal be to equalize test scores, assuming that tests are good indicators of student potential as well as current knowledge? Probably not. I think the best we can do is strive to equalize education opportunity.

It could be that the "no excuses" schools are on the right path but I'm also inclined to agree with the notion that "our urban public schools cannot succeed unless health, social and employment issues are addressed" (see Jay Mathews blog). My thoughts on this turn to basic management theory. Many will remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid: simply put, the majority of lower level needs (physiological, safety, love/belonging and esteem) must be met before one can experience self-actualization. As Deborah Meier observed

The poor kids I encountered in kindergarten were accustomed to more formal and more consistent good manners—whether it was in how to address their elders or how to dress properly. They were less whiney and more obedient.

Children of the poor get tougher and more unmannerly slowly. In time, they lose respect for authority. Perhaps because adults are rarely able (or willing) to protect them. Maybe because many public authorities quite openly treat them and their families disrespectfully. Over time, they come to depend on “the streets” and their “peer culture” for safety...

When children of the poor realize that their lower level needs are not being met, they begin to seek satisfaction elsewhere, usually from within a culture that does not place much value on education. Obviously a small percentage of urban poor children achieve educational self-actualization in spite of their communities and economic circumstances. I will bet that these children are somehow experiencing a greater degree of basic needs satisfaction than the majority as well as being indoctrinated with the no excuses concept.