Sunday, May 10, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
When Content Standards Go Bad
When discussing barriers to technology integration and 21st Century Skills, educators can offer a long list. Typical responses include time, money, and lack of training. Yet one item arguably the most difficult barrier to true integration is what I believe to be the most overlooked: curriculum standards.
How can education's darling of accountability and consistency be a barrier? For years I have had discussions with educators about this issue, but I have never felt that I articulated the problem as well as I would like. Then last week the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge group released a new study:
When Goal Setting Goes Bad and
Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Prescribing Goal Setting
It begs the question--how can goal setting be bad? Isn't goal setting always better than the alternative--no goals? The paper describes predictable ways in which goal setting harms organizations; they go on to argue that, in many situations, the damaging effects of goal setting outweigh its benefits. The similarities to curriculum standards are very strong. Then again, when you really get down to their core essence, curriculum standards are a form of goal setting. Let's examine how the points in the research on goal setting are directly applicable to content standards. Reader note: when reading these quotes from the report below, mentally replace the word goal with standard.
Narrow Goals--the HBS paper describes how goals can focus attention so narrowly that people overlook other important features--they develop inattentional blindness. "Goal setting may cause people to ignore important dimensions of performance that are not specified by the goal setting system...The very presence of goals may lead employees to focus myopically on short-term gains and to lose sight of the potential devastating long-term effects on the organization."
Many states/schools refer to their standards as content standards. Unfortunately, too much of our content is based on factual knowledge. A large contributor to this problem is our assessment, particularly testing (more about this in a later blog). By focusing narrowly on on knowledge level standards, educators can neglect important higher order thinking skills.
I cannot count how many times I have presented teachers a lesson that demonstrates a melding of 21st Century Skills, the new Bloom's taxonomy, and web 2.0 tools, only to have them walk away saying it doesn't fit their specific curriculum standards. How did we as educators allow ourselves to slip to a position where low-level/knowledge-based/easily-tested content reigns so powerfully that it vetoes all else we deem important in education?
Often our most powerful tools to best facilitate 21st Century Skills are banned/blocked/filtered in schools because students might be able to use them to "cheat" on narrow knowledge-based content. To illustrate this point, I show teachers how to use their cell phones to text ChaCha (242242) with any open-ended factual content question from their class. Many are amazed to see they can get answers to much of their content without even needing a smartphone! I then ask how many do not allow cell phones in their classrooms because they may be used for cheating (typically most hands go up).
But the question I have to be ask is this--if much of our classroom content can be answered that easily, are we really asking the right questions? It is a glaring sign that our content is too narrow.
Too Many Goals--"Related research suggests that some types of goals are more likely to be ignored than others...When quantity and quality goals were both
difficult, participants sacrificed quality to meet the quantity goals.
Goals that are easier to achieve and measure (such as quantity) may be
given more attention than other goals (such as quality) in a multi-goal
situation."
Our content standards are a mile-wide and an inch deep, and this presents a large barrier to integrating 21st Century Skills. When presented with tools and techniques to venture deeper with authentic intellectually-challenging types of learning, teachers invariably respond that they do not have the time to pursue it. But when quizzed further about this issue, it turns out to be less an issue of time than an issue of priority--they have too much content that must be covered before the end of the semester. To pursue depth with any portion of the curriculum would require they not cover other areas of their curriculum. In essence, we sacrifice depth & challenge (quality) for volume & surface-knowledge (quantity).
Inappropriate Time Horizons--"Goals that emphasize immediate
performance (e.g., this quarter’s profits) prompt managers to engage in
myopic, short-term behavior that harms the organization in the long
run...The time horizon problem is related to the notion that goals can
lead people to perceive their goals as ceilings rather than floors for
performance."
While the HSB report focuses on this as a time issue, in education the ceilings/floors problem is just as much an issue of settling for lower-levels of knowledge. Rather than viewing proficiency of content standards as the first stage (floor), it is too often viewed as the final goal (ceiling). Proficiency in knowledge-level content is not enough.
Many have criticized NCLB for turning attention away from gifted and high-performing students. But what we are learning from 21st Century Skills development is that all students need to be exposed to authentic intellectually-challenging learning experiences. It cannot be relegated to a select few anymore.
More on content standards as barriers to 21st Century Skills in the next blog...
How can education's darling of accountability and consistency be a barrier? For years I have had discussions with educators about this issue, but I have never felt that I articulated the problem as well as I would like. Then last week the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge group released a new study:
When Goal Setting Goes Bad and
Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Prescribing Goal Setting
It begs the question--how can goal setting be bad? Isn't goal setting always better than the alternative--no goals? The paper describes predictable ways in which goal setting harms organizations; they go on to argue that, in many situations, the damaging effects of goal setting outweigh its benefits. The similarities to curriculum standards are very strong. Then again, when you really get down to their core essence, curriculum standards are a form of goal setting. Let's examine how the points in the research on goal setting are directly applicable to content standards. Reader note: when reading these quotes from the report below, mentally replace the word goal with standard.
Narrow Goals--the HBS paper describes how goals can focus attention so narrowly that people overlook other important features--they develop inattentional blindness. "Goal setting may cause people to ignore important dimensions of performance that are not specified by the goal setting system...The very presence of goals may lead employees to focus myopically on short-term gains and to lose sight of the potential devastating long-term effects on the organization."
Many states/schools refer to their standards as content standards. Unfortunately, too much of our content is based on factual knowledge. A large contributor to this problem is our assessment, particularly testing (more about this in a later blog). By focusing narrowly on on knowledge level standards, educators can neglect important higher order thinking skills.
I cannot count how many times I have presented teachers a lesson that demonstrates a melding of 21st Century Skills, the new Bloom's taxonomy, and web 2.0 tools, only to have them walk away saying it doesn't fit their specific curriculum standards. How did we as educators allow ourselves to slip to a position where low-level/knowledge-based/easily-tested content reigns so powerfully that it vetoes all else we deem important in education?
Often our most powerful tools to best facilitate 21st Century Skills are banned/blocked/filtered in schools because students might be able to use them to "cheat" on narrow knowledge-based content. To illustrate this point, I show teachers how to use their cell phones to text ChaCha (242242) with any open-ended factual content question from their class. Many are amazed to see they can get answers to much of their content without even needing a smartphone! I then ask how many do not allow cell phones in their classrooms because they may be used for cheating (typically most hands go up).
But the question I have to be ask is this--if much of our classroom content can be answered that easily, are we really asking the right questions? It is a glaring sign that our content is too narrow.
Too Many Goals--"Related research suggests that some types of goals are more likely to be ignored than others...When quantity and quality goals were both
difficult, participants sacrificed quality to meet the quantity goals.
Goals that are easier to achieve and measure (such as quantity) may be
given more attention than other goals (such as quality) in a multi-goal
situation."
Our content standards are a mile-wide and an inch deep, and this presents a large barrier to integrating 21st Century Skills. When presented with tools and techniques to venture deeper with authentic intellectually-challenging types of learning, teachers invariably respond that they do not have the time to pursue it. But when quizzed further about this issue, it turns out to be less an issue of time than an issue of priority--they have too much content that must be covered before the end of the semester. To pursue depth with any portion of the curriculum would require they not cover other areas of their curriculum. In essence, we sacrifice depth & challenge (quality) for volume & surface-knowledge (quantity).
Inappropriate Time Horizons--"Goals that emphasize immediate
performance (e.g., this quarter’s profits) prompt managers to engage in
myopic, short-term behavior that harms the organization in the long
run...The time horizon problem is related to the notion that goals can
lead people to perceive their goals as ceilings rather than floors for
performance."
While the HSB report focuses on this as a time issue, in education the ceilings/floors problem is just as much an issue of settling for lower-levels of knowledge. Rather than viewing proficiency of content standards as the first stage (floor), it is too often viewed as the final goal (ceiling). Proficiency in knowledge-level content is not enough.
Many have criticized NCLB for turning attention away from gifted and high-performing students. But what we are learning from 21st Century Skills development is that all students need to be exposed to authentic intellectually-challenging learning experiences. It cannot be relegated to a select few anymore.
More on content standards as barriers to 21st Century Skills in the next blog...
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
21st Century Schooling Just Isn't Good Enough--I Think Not
Don't get me wrong, I really did enjoy Alfie Kohn's When 21st-Century Schooling Just Isn't Good Enough. His whimsical treatment of the Friedman "The World is Flat" mentality is dead on:
My concern is Kohn's criticism of 21st Century Skills (21cs)--it should be attributed to "Friedman think." I would argue that 21cs embraces collaboration, adaptability, real-world problem solving--not preoccupation with competition based on fear.
Kohn continues his tongue-in-cheek conversation:
While this may cynically apply to traditional business models, it doesn't apply as well to the newer business models necessary for survival today. For example, Haque in his The Smart Growth Manifesto describes one of his pillars for smart growth:
The successful business strategy of today is less about volume of product and more about creativity and evolving services/product. These characteristics of smart growth align much more closely with 21cs that traditional business models. That's why we need students who can embrace the challenges that other people fear; why we need students who view the changes of India and China as opportunity, not competitive disadvantage; why we need educators who can look beyond traditional content standards to develop process for students to utilize higher order thinking skills, collaboration, and self-directed challenges.
21cs are often touted as important for the wrong reasons--it is less about competing to win and more about students adapting to challenges, either collaboratively or competitively depending on the situation. So while I fully appreciated Alfie's article, I really don't attribute his cynicism to 21cs--rather to "old" ideas about how 21cs would be applied inappropriately to out-of-date business thinking.
First, it signifies an emphasis on competitiveness. Even those who talk about 21st-century schools invariably follow that phrase with a reference to “the need to compete in a global economy.” The goal isn’t excellence, in other words; it’s victory. Education is first and foremost about being first and foremost...Whatever the criterion, our challenge is to make sure that people who don’t live in the United States will always be inferior to us.How many times have we been told we should be alarmed at the number of honor students and graduates from China and India? Most of us recognize the need to change our collective perspective of our role in the world, but fear-mongering is the wrong message. Why should we as educators--the very people whose core belief is that education is the absolutely crucial ingredient for bettering society--fear other countries who are dramatically increasing the education level of their own populace? Don't we have more to fear of a country that does little to change the fate of their illiterate population?
My concern is Kohn's criticism of 21st Century Skills (21cs)--it should be attributed to "Friedman think." I would argue that 21cs embraces collaboration, adaptability, real-world problem solving--not preoccupation with competition based on fear.
Kohn continues his tongue-in-cheek conversation:
In addition to competitiveness, those who specify an entire century to frame their objectives tend not to be distracted by all the fretting about what’s good for children. Instead, they ask, “What do our corporations need?” and work backwards from there. We must never forget the primary reason that children attend school – namely, to be trained in the skills that will maximize the profits earned by their future employers. Indeed, we have already made great strides in shifting the conversation about education to what will prove useful in workplaces rather than wasting time discussing what might support “democracy” (an 18th-century notion, isn’t it?) or what might promote self development as an intrinsic good (a concept that goes back thousands of years and is therefore antiquated by definition).
While this may cynically apply to traditional business models, it doesn't apply as well to the newer business models necessary for survival today. For example, Haque in his The Smart Growth Manifesto describes one of his pillars for smart growth:
Smart growth isn't driven by pushing product, but by the skill, dedication, and creativity of people. What's the difference? Everything. Globalization driven by McJobs deskilling the world, versus globalization driven by entrepreneurship, venture economies, and radical ovation.
The successful business strategy of today is less about volume of product and more about creativity and evolving services/product. These characteristics of smart growth align much more closely with 21cs that traditional business models. That's why we need students who can embrace the challenges that other people fear; why we need students who view the changes of India and China as opportunity, not competitive disadvantage; why we need educators who can look beyond traditional content standards to develop process for students to utilize higher order thinking skills, collaboration, and self-directed challenges.
21cs are often touted as important for the wrong reasons--it is less about competing to win and more about students adapting to challenges, either collaboratively or competitively depending on the situation. So while I fully appreciated Alfie's article, I really don't attribute his cynicism to 21cs--rather to "old" ideas about how 21cs would be applied inappropriately to out-of-date business thinking.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Getting started on my "real" blog
This past year+ I have been blogging on my workplace blog at TIE, which has been a great experience. While TIE has given us quite a bit of leeway for blogging, I do find I hold back on many ideas because some topics may be "edgy" enough or laced enough with personal opinion that the organization may not deem it appropriate for their blog (more by my own restrictions than theirs). Deep down I know some ideas, thoughts, and concepts could at the very least be thought-provoking or, even better, action-provoking for others--yet the hesitance usually wins.
Then I read Will Richardson's blog
Weblogg-ed » My Blogging Legacy
Then I read Will Richardson's blog
Weblogg-ed » My Blogging Legacy
I think that dream brought to light another aspect of why I blog. Not just to reflect. Not just to learn. But in some small way to leave a trail for those who come after me. I certainly can’t predict to what extent those people might find any of this relevant or compelling or useful, but I know I would love to have the chance to dig through the work of my own mother, to learn about her more deeply, to understand who she was and what she stood for. If nothing else, my kids will have that opportunity.While I have no delusions of having a following anywhere near the Will Richardson's of the world, I do think his words prodded me to realize it is time to express myself more deeply than the work blog allows. Thanks for the nudge, Will!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)