Hello everyone,
I think we sometimes confuse our students' learning styles with their abilities to learn.
Let me give an extreme example.
A blind person can read and play music. Any blind person may be taught to read and play music. However, the sort of music reading that a blind person does is different from the sort a seeing person does. If I am unable to teach music literacy for the blind, then I might be tempted to say that a blind person cannot be taught to read music. If I were working with a blind person's playing skills, I would probably use auditory and kinesthetic techniques, but if I insisted on using visual techniques ("Just watch how I do it") I'll have to admit that I am unable to teach the blind person to play.
Still, Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, and George Shearing prove that it can be done.
Now, by the same token, if I take visual learners and insist on teaching them by requiring them to listen only to my lecture and take notes, I will not teach them very much.
As well, requiring an auditory learner to pick up something simply by reading it won't be very useful.
Ditto the other modalities.
I'm not saying that a visual learner can't learn to listen and take notes, and auditory and kinesthetic learners should never read.
I'm saying that we need to do two things: use a variety of strategies that accommodate different styles of learning, and consciously teach skills that colleges require (like listening to lectures, taking notes, and learning from reading).
Show pictures with your direct instruction; use manipulatives; combine movement with learning; use role play; teach how to take notes; teach how to listen and filter important facts; teach how to see details in films, pictures, and designs; and use every trick in every book you find that works.
The sightless can read; the deaf can move rhythmically; the non-ambulatory can compete in marathons. Everyone can learn--with adaptation and a little help.
Jeff Combe
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Positive reinforcement
Hello everyone,
I'm going to venture into an area that's unclear to me; I frankly follow my instincts a lot, and I can't be certain if my instincts are always correct.
I know that it is extremely important for us to give our students positive feedback. I'm just not sure how to set down a group of rules that would give certain guidelines on how or when to do it.
I can give a number of fixed principles about positive feedback:
1. It must be given.
2. It must be honest when it is given.
3. It must be meaningful.
4. It must be sincere; it cannot be used to manipulate; and it should not be used simply to soften the blow of negative feedback ("That was good but . . ." or "You are so good at this, why don't you do it for me?" or the thoughtlessly said, "Very good," for something that is obviously not good).
I understand that frequent positive feedback is important for some--maybe all--of our students, but I recognize that there is a danger in too frequent compliments. Compliments given too frequently become meaningless, and high school age students cannot expect that the world will always recognize their daily accomplishments. To say, "That was really good that you did your homework" may be essential for someone who never does it, but it can easily transform into, "You should learn to expect praise for doing your duty," which is not always desirable.
You're starting to see some of my problems.
I don't think I praised my students enough. I look back on my classroom practice, and I can see that I had students who were starved for affirmation, and I was pretty stingy with it. I have enough of the taciturn Yankee in me to want to fix what's wrong and not say anything about what's right. I consciously think that I'm wrong in that, but I'm not yet skilled enough to know when the right amount occurs.
My instincts are able to tell me when I've been too critical, but they usually don't tell me until I've been across the line for awhile, and I start to see the results of my criticism on the faces of those I've criticized.
My instincts also tell me when I'm pouring the praise on too thickly, but they tell me I'm doing it long before I'm at the saturation point with the people being praised.
I like to think that my praises are really meaningful when they're given because I don't pour them on, but I'm increasingly doubting my sense of proportion.
Give praise; give positive reinforcement; give it frequently. I'm not always successful at that.
Never give it insincerely, however. I know that that is a true principle. Never give it to manipulate. That's true.
So you are left to find ways to sincerely praise or compliment people. That may mean that you will have to break down the achievements of some of your students to component parts and praise them frequently enough that, when the correction needs to come, it comes in proportion.
Meanwhile, I'll keep working on it.
Jeff Combe
I'm going to venture into an area that's unclear to me; I frankly follow my instincts a lot, and I can't be certain if my instincts are always correct.
I know that it is extremely important for us to give our students positive feedback. I'm just not sure how to set down a group of rules that would give certain guidelines on how or when to do it.
I can give a number of fixed principles about positive feedback:
1. It must be given.
2. It must be honest when it is given.
3. It must be meaningful.
4. It must be sincere; it cannot be used to manipulate; and it should not be used simply to soften the blow of negative feedback ("That was good but . . ." or "You are so good at this, why don't you do it for me?" or the thoughtlessly said, "Very good," for something that is obviously not good).
I understand that frequent positive feedback is important for some--maybe all--of our students, but I recognize that there is a danger in too frequent compliments. Compliments given too frequently become meaningless, and high school age students cannot expect that the world will always recognize their daily accomplishments. To say, "That was really good that you did your homework" may be essential for someone who never does it, but it can easily transform into, "You should learn to expect praise for doing your duty," which is not always desirable.
You're starting to see some of my problems.
I don't think I praised my students enough. I look back on my classroom practice, and I can see that I had students who were starved for affirmation, and I was pretty stingy with it. I have enough of the taciturn Yankee in me to want to fix what's wrong and not say anything about what's right. I consciously think that I'm wrong in that, but I'm not yet skilled enough to know when the right amount occurs.
My instincts are able to tell me when I've been too critical, but they usually don't tell me until I've been across the line for awhile, and I start to see the results of my criticism on the faces of those I've criticized.
My instincts also tell me when I'm pouring the praise on too thickly, but they tell me I'm doing it long before I'm at the saturation point with the people being praised.
I like to think that my praises are really meaningful when they're given because I don't pour them on, but I'm increasingly doubting my sense of proportion.
Give praise; give positive reinforcement; give it frequently. I'm not always successful at that.
Never give it insincerely, however. I know that that is a true principle. Never give it to manipulate. That's true.
So you are left to find ways to sincerely praise or compliment people. That may mean that you will have to break down the achievements of some of your students to component parts and praise them frequently enough that, when the correction needs to come, it comes in proportion.
Meanwhile, I'll keep working on it.
Jeff Combe
Monday, April 28, 2008
A dream of eight intelligences
Hello everyone,
If you don't mind, I will wax philosophical about education.
In the ideal educational environment, students would begin early being trained in all of the eight modalities of intelligence: language, math, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and nature; and all modalities would be treated equally.
In an ideal school, everyone would be helped to high standards in all facets of their selves. Certainly, those with learning disabilities (in any of the eight intelligences) would receive additional intervention, and those with severe disabilities would be given alternative curricula, but everyone would be developed fully in all their intelligences.
By all means, allow those who excel to stand out. I don't see any problem with that. Let them be leaders and mentors (which will help to develop their interpersonal intelligence). But recognize excellence equally in the full spectrum of possible achievement.
Recognize as well that, just as everyone can learn to read and do math, everyone can learn music, design, sports, diplomacy, self-reflection, and how to grow a garden. We can all sing, play instruments, paint, dance, speak second languages, and be kind and gentle to people and animals. We can all learn technology, biology, physics, carpentry, and how to work together.
Those things must be treated equally from the beginning;.
The truth is, right now everything but the barest essentials of reading, writing, and arithmetic are almost all of what are valued in our school system.
I'm not sure what practical value this has in your classrooms right now. Probably none--especially in the face of budget cuts and our continued struggles to meet benchmarks in only two of the eight intelligences.
But I think that, maybe being aware of a powerful inter-relation among the intelligences may be helpful. Maybe our students will be so inspired by our teaching that some of them will grow up and make education what it really ought to be--the training and development of a complete human being, who is then able to continue that training and development independently.
It's a dream, I know. But it's mine, and I like it.
Jeff Combe
If you don't mind, I will wax philosophical about education.
In the ideal educational environment, students would begin early being trained in all of the eight modalities of intelligence: language, math, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and nature; and all modalities would be treated equally.
In an ideal school, everyone would be helped to high standards in all facets of their selves. Certainly, those with learning disabilities (in any of the eight intelligences) would receive additional intervention, and those with severe disabilities would be given alternative curricula, but everyone would be developed fully in all their intelligences.
By all means, allow those who excel to stand out. I don't see any problem with that. Let them be leaders and mentors (which will help to develop their interpersonal intelligence). But recognize excellence equally in the full spectrum of possible achievement.
Recognize as well that, just as everyone can learn to read and do math, everyone can learn music, design, sports, diplomacy, self-reflection, and how to grow a garden. We can all sing, play instruments, paint, dance, speak second languages, and be kind and gentle to people and animals. We can all learn technology, biology, physics, carpentry, and how to work together.
Those things must be treated equally from the beginning;.
The truth is, right now everything but the barest essentials of reading, writing, and arithmetic are almost all of what are valued in our school system.
I'm not sure what practical value this has in your classrooms right now. Probably none--especially in the face of budget cuts and our continued struggles to meet benchmarks in only two of the eight intelligences.
But I think that, maybe being aware of a powerful inter-relation among the intelligences may be helpful. Maybe our students will be so inspired by our teaching that some of them will grow up and make education what it really ought to be--the training and development of a complete human being, who is then able to continue that training and development independently.
It's a dream, I know. But it's mine, and I like it.
Jeff Combe
Working with kinesthetic learners
Hello everyone,
I think one of the biggest problems we have in managing academic classes is trying to figure out how to handle the kinesthetic learners.
These are the kids that have to touch everything; they are not necessarily hyperactive, but they think better on their feet, moving around, than they do sitting. They almost require movement or tactile contact in order to learn.
Some of them may also be above average in kinesthetic intelligence, or they may feel more comfortable in situations requiring movement rather than the traditional sitting still that academic teachers seem to prefer.
For PE teachers, dance teachers, and coaches, they're terrific. For math and English they can be difficult. (Science and history often require students to get up and do things, which are great ways of allowing kinesthetic learners to participate in their comfort zone.)
What do teachers do with the kinesthetics?
First, value their skills. The almost stereotypical battle between the English teacher and the athlete isn't good for either one. There's no reason why an academic teacher can't learn to appreciate a student's talents for athletics, dance, cheer, or other movement.
Second, look for excuses to have the entire class moving around occasionally. For many students, combining movement with cognition is essential. For the rest, the powerful associations that come from movement combined with learning are useful.
Some teachers use games to great effect; one teacher I knew combined sports activities with concept learning (it doesn't work with skill learning that I can think of); role playing is exceptionally effective in a wide variety of subjects; staged readings of almost anything.
There are classroom management tasks that kinesthetic learners are delighted to do. Let them write on the board for you, pass out papers, direct the clean up, set up labs.Suggestions and tricks aside, the point is that kinesthetic learning and kinesthetic intelligence ought to be valued, even outside the activities that demand them.
Jeff Combe
I think one of the biggest problems we have in managing academic classes is trying to figure out how to handle the kinesthetic learners.
These are the kids that have to touch everything; they are not necessarily hyperactive, but they think better on their feet, moving around, than they do sitting. They almost require movement or tactile contact in order to learn.
Some of them may also be above average in kinesthetic intelligence, or they may feel more comfortable in situations requiring movement rather than the traditional sitting still that academic teachers seem to prefer.
For PE teachers, dance teachers, and coaches, they're terrific. For math and English they can be difficult. (Science and history often require students to get up and do things, which are great ways of allowing kinesthetic learners to participate in their comfort zone.)
What do teachers do with the kinesthetics?
First, value their skills. The almost stereotypical battle between the English teacher and the athlete isn't good for either one. There's no reason why an academic teacher can't learn to appreciate a student's talents for athletics, dance, cheer, or other movement.
Second, look for excuses to have the entire class moving around occasionally. For many students, combining movement with cognition is essential. For the rest, the powerful associations that come from movement combined with learning are useful.
Some teachers use games to great effect; one teacher I knew combined sports activities with concept learning (it doesn't work with skill learning that I can think of); role playing is exceptionally effective in a wide variety of subjects; staged readings of almost anything.
There are classroom management tasks that kinesthetic learners are delighted to do. Let them write on the board for you, pass out papers, direct the clean up, set up labs.Suggestions and tricks aside, the point is that kinesthetic learning and kinesthetic intelligence ought to be valued, even outside the activities that demand them.
Jeff Combe
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Assessing understanding
Hello everyone,
The six facets of understanding are explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge.
If a student truly understands a concept, the student should be able to explain it, interpret it, and apply it, as well as put it into perspective with other things the student knows. To understand another human being is to have empathy; to understand oneself is to have self-knowledge.
Each of these eight facets is independent of the others, and not all function equally in all situations.
It is up to the teacher to decide which facet of understanding is important for the concept being taught, then how to assess that understanding. Once the teacher has made those decisions, it's relatively easy to plan backward to the current starting point and work toward that understanding.
Keep in mind that, without one of these six facets, we are alleging that there is no real understanding. If a student can't explain, interpret, apply, or see perspective, then the student doesn't really understand the concept. If there is no empathy, there is no human understanding. If self-knowledge is inaccurate, there is little or no self-understanding.
If the demonstrations of the facets are superficial or unsophisticated, then there is limited or no understanding.
I mean, for example, that if a student undertakes to explain something, but the explanation is wrong, inadequate, or simplistic, then the student probably has not understood that thing.
Of course, there is always the problem of communication interfering with an assessment of understanding. If a student could give a good spoken explanation of American democracy, but could not coherently put that in writing, then my assessment will be faulty. It is sometimes necessary to try multiple modalities in assessment to avoid this. All students may have to give oral presentations and write essays so that a failure in communication is not perceived as a failure in understanding.
By the same token, much of what we want our students to understand is HOW to communicate their understanding to others. Students show an understanding of expository writing by applying that understanding to coherent expository essays, for example. Or students may show self understanding, empathy, and interpretation by writing poems. Perspective may be shown in public debates as well as persuasive essays, which would require the teacher to teach certain skills. Lab skills will be used to show application, and the ability to apply lab skills shows understanding of the skills.
There is an interlocking sort of understanding that we work with--concepts and skills reinforcing each other--and we may test one or more facets of understanding when we are simultaneously testing for understanding of concepts and skills.
Whatever we're testing for, whatever end we want, we must begin at the end and plan backwards, all the time knowing what understanding looks like, and always working toward it.
Jeff Combe
The six facets of understanding are explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge.
If a student truly understands a concept, the student should be able to explain it, interpret it, and apply it, as well as put it into perspective with other things the student knows. To understand another human being is to have empathy; to understand oneself is to have self-knowledge.
Each of these eight facets is independent of the others, and not all function equally in all situations.
It is up to the teacher to decide which facet of understanding is important for the concept being taught, then how to assess that understanding. Once the teacher has made those decisions, it's relatively easy to plan backward to the current starting point and work toward that understanding.
Keep in mind that, without one of these six facets, we are alleging that there is no real understanding. If a student can't explain, interpret, apply, or see perspective, then the student doesn't really understand the concept. If there is no empathy, there is no human understanding. If self-knowledge is inaccurate, there is little or no self-understanding.
If the demonstrations of the facets are superficial or unsophisticated, then there is limited or no understanding.
I mean, for example, that if a student undertakes to explain something, but the explanation is wrong, inadequate, or simplistic, then the student probably has not understood that thing.
Of course, there is always the problem of communication interfering with an assessment of understanding. If a student could give a good spoken explanation of American democracy, but could not coherently put that in writing, then my assessment will be faulty. It is sometimes necessary to try multiple modalities in assessment to avoid this. All students may have to give oral presentations and write essays so that a failure in communication is not perceived as a failure in understanding.
By the same token, much of what we want our students to understand is HOW to communicate their understanding to others. Students show an understanding of expository writing by applying that understanding to coherent expository essays, for example. Or students may show self understanding, empathy, and interpretation by writing poems. Perspective may be shown in public debates as well as persuasive essays, which would require the teacher to teach certain skills. Lab skills will be used to show application, and the ability to apply lab skills shows understanding of the skills.
There is an interlocking sort of understanding that we work with--concepts and skills reinforcing each other--and we may test one or more facets of understanding when we are simultaneously testing for understanding of concepts and skills.
Whatever we're testing for, whatever end we want, we must begin at the end and plan backwards, all the time knowing what understanding looks like, and always working toward it.
Jeff Combe
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
End of the year practicalities
Hello everyone,
I received an email from a teacher that I thought was worth sharing and commenting on:
"What's your advice on getting through the last 8 weeks in the semester. At this point, I'm feeling SO tired and the students also seem to share my feelings. They seem more antsy and impatient lately, and I'm losing my patience as well. Is it just me or is this what usually happens at this time of the school year?"
I remember a lot from my elementary school days, and what I remember the most from the ends of the years is that it was fun. May and June, for me, were filled with lots of fun activities. I remember very little learning.
By high school, this had changed somewhat, but the feeling and the expectation of fun at the end of the year remained with me. My high school teachers planned culminating activities that engaged me, then hung the threat of not graduating over my head for my senior year.
It's hard to say for sure if my expectations for year end were created by my elementary teachers, or if my elementary teachers simply bowed to reality and planned lots of field trips and fun projects for the end of the year because they knew we wouldn't be up for much else.
I currently think--after more than two decades in the classroom--that my teachers bowed to reality, and the reality is that, late in the year, everyone is tired. All of us but C-track are just entering the long home stretch before the end of the year; the next holiday is more than a month away; our students have firmly adopted whatever habits you've taught them. Things are so firmly established in your classrooms by this time of the year that there is little likelihood of your changing them anything in any extraordinary way.
What you can do is synthesize what you've learned all year. This is a great time to work on those higher level Bloom's skills: application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. You will give them little new knowledge; you can't do more than adjust their comprehension skills. You can, however, assign culminating activities that require them to use the knowledge they've gained.
I consciously tried to plan all my favorite works of literature, or my most engaging literature, at the end of the year. There was more comedy, more adventure, more romance. Much fewer deep, dark thoughts; more entertaining thoughts. I did not introduce any new and difficult concepts. (I introduced new and easy concepts, however.)
I programmed games for review, field trips, student-guided instruction, and final projects.
I did not take time off or give them "kick back days"; I did, however, try to find ways that required them to apply what they had learned, to synthesize it, and to evaluate it.
One activity I found worked really well for my AP students was to give them the opportunity to plan the final six weeks themselves. I required them to work at AP level in a related subject field and conclude with a project that was the equivalent in difficulty to a 10-page research paper. They chose the theme of the closing months; I approved the final projects; and we studied what they wanted to study. It was fun.
It wasn't as fun as the final weeks of the second grade, but it kept me fresh, and either my students took my lead or it kept them fresh, too.
There's no reason why a sprint to the end has to be punishing.
Jeff Combe
I received an email from a teacher that I thought was worth sharing and commenting on:
"What's your advice on getting through the last 8 weeks in the semester. At this point, I'm feeling SO tired and the students also seem to share my feelings. They seem more antsy and impatient lately, and I'm losing my patience as well. Is it just me or is this what usually happens at this time of the school year?"
I remember a lot from my elementary school days, and what I remember the most from the ends of the years is that it was fun. May and June, for me, were filled with lots of fun activities. I remember very little learning.
By high school, this had changed somewhat, but the feeling and the expectation of fun at the end of the year remained with me. My high school teachers planned culminating activities that engaged me, then hung the threat of not graduating over my head for my senior year.
It's hard to say for sure if my expectations for year end were created by my elementary teachers, or if my elementary teachers simply bowed to reality and planned lots of field trips and fun projects for the end of the year because they knew we wouldn't be up for much else.
I currently think--after more than two decades in the classroom--that my teachers bowed to reality, and the reality is that, late in the year, everyone is tired. All of us but C-track are just entering the long home stretch before the end of the year; the next holiday is more than a month away; our students have firmly adopted whatever habits you've taught them. Things are so firmly established in your classrooms by this time of the year that there is little likelihood of your changing them anything in any extraordinary way.
What you can do is synthesize what you've learned all year. This is a great time to work on those higher level Bloom's skills: application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. You will give them little new knowledge; you can't do more than adjust their comprehension skills. You can, however, assign culminating activities that require them to use the knowledge they've gained.
I consciously tried to plan all my favorite works of literature, or my most engaging literature, at the end of the year. There was more comedy, more adventure, more romance. Much fewer deep, dark thoughts; more entertaining thoughts. I did not introduce any new and difficult concepts. (I introduced new and easy concepts, however.)
I programmed games for review, field trips, student-guided instruction, and final projects.
I did not take time off or give them "kick back days"; I did, however, try to find ways that required them to apply what they had learned, to synthesize it, and to evaluate it.
One activity I found worked really well for my AP students was to give them the opportunity to plan the final six weeks themselves. I required them to work at AP level in a related subject field and conclude with a project that was the equivalent in difficulty to a 10-page research paper. They chose the theme of the closing months; I approved the final projects; and we studied what they wanted to study. It was fun.
It wasn't as fun as the final weeks of the second grade, but it kept me fresh, and either my students took my lead or it kept them fresh, too.
There's no reason why a sprint to the end has to be punishing.
Jeff Combe
Monday, April 21, 2008
More on preparing them for college
Hello everyone,
I will get back to the subjects from last week that I had intended exploring (intelligence and understanding), but I received a comment on one of the emails posted on my blog that I would like to comment on.
My thoughts are in CAPS.
Here is the posting:
I like your points of view, but is everyone fit to be college material?
IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANT TO DEFINE "COLLEGE." FOR THE SAKE OF MY STUDENTS, I CHOOSE TO DEFINE IT AS "POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION." IN THE BROADEST SENSE, THIS COULD INCLUDE MILITARY TRAINING, THOUGH I TEND TO CLASSIFY MILITARY TRAINING AS A SEPARATE THING.
I INCLUDE VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS THAT ARE POST-SECONDARY AS WELL AS APPRENTICESHIPS IN MY PERSONAL DEFINITION OF "COLLEGE."
THE REALITY OF THE AMERICAN MARKETPLACE IS THAT IT IS VERY RARE FOR ANYONE WITH ONLY A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION TO MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES, LET ALONE A FAMILY. IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MARKET, WHERE FURNISHED ROOMS REGULARLY RENT FOR MORE THAN $500 A MONTH AND TRANSPORTATION IS PROHIBITIVE, MINIMUM WAGE OR COMMISSION-ONLY JOBS ARE SUFFICIENT ONLY FOR THE MOST FRUGAL AMONG US.
SOME POST-SECONDARY TRAINING IS NECESSARY.
FOR THOSE AMONG US SO DISABLED AS TO BE INCAPABLE OF POST-SECONDARY TRAINING, I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR SOCIETY TO PROVIDE SUPPORT.
THE SIMPLE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS IS, "NO, EVERYONE IS NOT COLLEGE MATERIAL," BUT THERE ARE SO MANY QUALIFICATIONS TO THAT ANSWER THAT I HAVE TO GIVE THE LONGER AND MORE COMPLEX ANSWER I'VE GIVEN.
How about training someone, giving them a skill, a career?
IT USED TO BE POSSIBLE FOR HIGH SCHOOLS TO GIVE SUFFICIENT TRAINING IN A VARIETY OF SKILLS FOR STUDENTS TO MAKE A LIVING FRESH OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL. I HAVE KNOWN STUDENTS FROM GARFIELD'S COMPUTER MAGNET TO EARN GOOD MONEY RIGHT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL USING THEIR PROGRAMMING SKILLS, BUT THAT WAS MORE THAN 15 YEARS AGO. I HAVE ALSO TRAINED STUDENTS AS FILM EDITORS WHO GOT WORK RIGHT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL, BUT THAT WAS PRE-DIGITAL. AUTO MECHANICS NEED SPECIALIZED COMPUTER TRAINING. CARPENTERS MUST BE TRAINED BY THEIR UNIONS, MAKING WOODSHOP A PREPARATORY SKILL, NOT CAREER-LEVEL.
How about technical education. It is another opportunity to succeed. What is your opinion about career tech?
I CONSIDER IT COLLEGE.
TECHNICAL EDUCATION IS NECESSARY FOR THE SORTS OF CAREERS IT SUPPORTS. FEW HIGH SCHOOLS ARE EQUIPPED TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY TRAINING, SO MOST OF IT IS DONE AFTER HIGH SCHOOL.
HAVING SAID ALL OF THIS, I MUST ADD THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT HIGH SCHOOLS MUST CONTINUE TO BE ONLY INTRODUCTIONS TO THE SORTS OF TRAINING THAT LEAD TO A REAL CAREER. I THINK THAT IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO RESTRUCTURE EDUCATION IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS FOR SOMEONE TO PURSUE A CAREER PATH IN HIGH SCHOOL. I DON'T THINK THERE IS CURRENTLY THE POLITICAL OR SOCIETAL WILL TO DO SUCH A THING, HOWEVER, SO WE CONTINUE WITH THE CURRENT MODEL OF PREPARING STUDENTS BROADLY FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION THAT TRAINS THEM MORE SPECIFICALLY FOR THEIR CAREERS.
JEFF COMBE
I will get back to the subjects from last week that I had intended exploring (intelligence and understanding), but I received a comment on one of the emails posted on my blog that I would like to comment on.
My thoughts are in CAPS.
Here is the posting:
I like your points of view, but is everyone fit to be college material?
IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANT TO DEFINE "COLLEGE." FOR THE SAKE OF MY STUDENTS, I CHOOSE TO DEFINE IT AS "POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION." IN THE BROADEST SENSE, THIS COULD INCLUDE MILITARY TRAINING, THOUGH I TEND TO CLASSIFY MILITARY TRAINING AS A SEPARATE THING.
I INCLUDE VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS THAT ARE POST-SECONDARY AS WELL AS APPRENTICESHIPS IN MY PERSONAL DEFINITION OF "COLLEGE."
THE REALITY OF THE AMERICAN MARKETPLACE IS THAT IT IS VERY RARE FOR ANYONE WITH ONLY A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION TO MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES, LET ALONE A FAMILY. IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MARKET, WHERE FURNISHED ROOMS REGULARLY RENT FOR MORE THAN $500 A MONTH AND TRANSPORTATION IS PROHIBITIVE, MINIMUM WAGE OR COMMISSION-ONLY JOBS ARE SUFFICIENT ONLY FOR THE MOST FRUGAL AMONG US.
SOME POST-SECONDARY TRAINING IS NECESSARY.
FOR THOSE AMONG US SO DISABLED AS TO BE INCAPABLE OF POST-SECONDARY TRAINING, I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR SOCIETY TO PROVIDE SUPPORT.
THE SIMPLE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS IS, "NO, EVERYONE IS NOT COLLEGE MATERIAL," BUT THERE ARE SO MANY QUALIFICATIONS TO THAT ANSWER THAT I HAVE TO GIVE THE LONGER AND MORE COMPLEX ANSWER I'VE GIVEN.
How about training someone, giving them a skill, a career?
IT USED TO BE POSSIBLE FOR HIGH SCHOOLS TO GIVE SUFFICIENT TRAINING IN A VARIETY OF SKILLS FOR STUDENTS TO MAKE A LIVING FRESH OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL. I HAVE KNOWN STUDENTS FROM GARFIELD'S COMPUTER MAGNET TO EARN GOOD MONEY RIGHT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL USING THEIR PROGRAMMING SKILLS, BUT THAT WAS MORE THAN 15 YEARS AGO. I HAVE ALSO TRAINED STUDENTS AS FILM EDITORS WHO GOT WORK RIGHT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL, BUT THAT WAS PRE-DIGITAL. AUTO MECHANICS NEED SPECIALIZED COMPUTER TRAINING. CARPENTERS MUST BE TRAINED BY THEIR UNIONS, MAKING WOODSHOP A PREPARATORY SKILL, NOT CAREER-LEVEL.
How about technical education. It is another opportunity to succeed. What is your opinion about career tech?
I CONSIDER IT COLLEGE.
TECHNICAL EDUCATION IS NECESSARY FOR THE SORTS OF CAREERS IT SUPPORTS. FEW HIGH SCHOOLS ARE EQUIPPED TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY TRAINING, SO MOST OF IT IS DONE AFTER HIGH SCHOOL.
HAVING SAID ALL OF THIS, I MUST ADD THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT HIGH SCHOOLS MUST CONTINUE TO BE ONLY INTRODUCTIONS TO THE SORTS OF TRAINING THAT LEAD TO A REAL CAREER. I THINK THAT IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE TO RESTRUCTURE EDUCATION IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS FOR SOMEONE TO PURSUE A CAREER PATH IN HIGH SCHOOL. I DON'T THINK THERE IS CURRENTLY THE POLITICAL OR SOCIETAL WILL TO DO SUCH A THING, HOWEVER, SO WE CONTINUE WITH THE CURRENT MODEL OF PREPARING STUDENTS BROADLY FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION THAT TRAINS THEM MORE SPECIFICALLY FOR THEIR CAREERS.
JEFF COMBE
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Some thoughts on intelligence
Hello everyone,
I had a discussion with a young teenager last week. "I'm Special Fred," she said to me. "What do you mean?" I asked. "I'm in special ed. classes. I'm not smart. You know--Special Ed: Special Fred. It's just a nickname."
"What are you in special ed. for?" I asked her.
"My reading," she said.
"How's your math?" I asked.
She was a year ahead of her gen. ed. peers, but was struggling. (At one year ahead!) Her struggles confirmed in her mind that she wasn't bright, even though she was advanced.
We had a rather lengthy discussion on the difference between intelligence and processing (my explanation of a learning disability--no problem with the cognition; some problem with processing). I don't know if I satisfied her, but I think she enjoyed the intellectual exercise.
I have had this conversation before with special ed. students. In a special day class once, when I was team teaching, the students brought up the inevitable conversation about being in special ed. which, they believed, made them unintelligent.
Actually, the same thing happens in band classes with the poor student who just can't hear that his instrument is out of tune, or in a PE class when the math whiz can't hit a basket, or in dance class when one girl can't put one foot in front of the other, or in social situations when someone always manages to say the wrong thing, or when a cheerleader has anorexia because she's sure she's ugly, or when a gardener can't keep anything but weeds alive.
The difference is that in school we tend to value only two eighths of the identified kinds of intelligence, and we take failures in other intelligences as a matter of course. Students, therefore, who do worse than average in math or language feel stupid, while others can simply avoid the subjects they're poor in.
It was when I was first entering teaching in the early 1980s that Howard Gardner at Harvard identified eight different kinds of human intelligence. I list them below:
Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")
(from http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm)
Understanding the eight intelligences, appreciating their differences, adapting to student variations, and accepting that everyone can be taught in every intelligence, help us as we work with our students. In special ed., sometimes it's just helpful for the kids to know that each of their eight intelligences is equally important, and their difficulty with words or numbers isn't a sign that they lack overall intelligence. In general ed. classes, we sometimes have to understand that the hyperactive child might have high kinesthetic intelligence, and that might be tapped for a variation in learning styles. Or we may acknowledge that it may be a disaster if we ignore interpersonal intelligence when setting up groups in class. (The child with the highest grade doesn't always have the highest interpersonal intelligence. The child with the lowest grade might.)
Different intelligences, along with different communication styles (which we covered in the New Teachers' Seminar), affect the different facets of understanding, and I'll talk about that on Friday.
Jeff Combe
I had a discussion with a young teenager last week. "I'm Special Fred," she said to me. "What do you mean?" I asked. "I'm in special ed. classes. I'm not smart. You know--Special Ed: Special Fred. It's just a nickname."
"What are you in special ed. for?" I asked her.
"My reading," she said.
"How's your math?" I asked.
She was a year ahead of her gen. ed. peers, but was struggling. (At one year ahead!) Her struggles confirmed in her mind that she wasn't bright, even though she was advanced.
We had a rather lengthy discussion on the difference between intelligence and processing (my explanation of a learning disability--no problem with the cognition; some problem with processing). I don't know if I satisfied her, but I think she enjoyed the intellectual exercise.
I have had this conversation before with special ed. students. In a special day class once, when I was team teaching, the students brought up the inevitable conversation about being in special ed. which, they believed, made them unintelligent.
Actually, the same thing happens in band classes with the poor student who just can't hear that his instrument is out of tune, or in a PE class when the math whiz can't hit a basket, or in dance class when one girl can't put one foot in front of the other, or in social situations when someone always manages to say the wrong thing, or when a cheerleader has anorexia because she's sure she's ugly, or when a gardener can't keep anything but weeds alive.
The difference is that in school we tend to value only two eighths of the identified kinds of intelligence, and we take failures in other intelligences as a matter of course. Students, therefore, who do worse than average in math or language feel stupid, while others can simply avoid the subjects they're poor in.
It was when I was first entering teaching in the early 1980s that Howard Gardner at Harvard identified eight different kinds of human intelligence. I list them below:
Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart")
(from http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm)
Understanding the eight intelligences, appreciating their differences, adapting to student variations, and accepting that everyone can be taught in every intelligence, help us as we work with our students. In special ed., sometimes it's just helpful for the kids to know that each of their eight intelligences is equally important, and their difficulty with words or numbers isn't a sign that they lack overall intelligence. In general ed. classes, we sometimes have to understand that the hyperactive child might have high kinesthetic intelligence, and that might be tapped for a variation in learning styles. Or we may acknowledge that it may be a disaster if we ignore interpersonal intelligence when setting up groups in class. (The child with the highest grade doesn't always have the highest interpersonal intelligence. The child with the lowest grade might.)
Different intelligences, along with different communication styles (which we covered in the New Teachers' Seminar), affect the different facets of understanding, and I'll talk about that on Friday.
Jeff Combe
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
PowerPoint: Use it well
Hello everyone,
PowerPoint is a wonderful program. I have used it in a variety of situations, and I have been in a variety of situations in which it has been used.
At its best, it is very entertaining. It keeps the information flowing. It gives access to a variety of visual and audio resources. It can be colorful and playful as well as factual. It can reinforce learning like no white board ever thought possible.
At its worst, it is deadly dull and factually incorrect.
In other words, it is a tool, no better and no worse than the worker who is using it.
Please please please (let me add another please if it will help) use it well.
The use of PowerPoint has little or nothing to do with age or experience. I have seen good and bad PowerPoint presentations at every level. I cannot tell you how many training sessions I have sat in (in a variety of situations in and out of school), taught by supposed experts, who gave awful presentations with poorly thought out PowerPoint presentations. I have likewise seen new teachers who were very good at it. And vice versa.
May I give a list of things that bug me when I see PowerPoint presentations? These are things that, I believe, make for terrible PowerPoint. My hope is that, if you know that they bug people, you will avoid them yourselves.
1. The font is unreadable.
This may be because the font is too small to be read throughout the room. It may be because of poor contrast (blue background, red letters, for example). It may be because the font is too ornate to be seen clearly. Perhaps the background has patterns that are too busy (a herringbone design, for example) to allow the letters to be read. Maybe there is too much to read.
Keep your written material short and readable. If you have to use many slides to get the information up, then so be it. One slide with hundreds of unreadable words makes me want to drop out of school--and I have a doctorate. Hundreds of slides with a few words and lots of pictures can make me happy. Happier, anyway.
2. The information is incorrect or incorrectly presented.
Check your facts. There is a power to electronic presentation that makes factually incorrect presentations as insidious as viruses. Your students will always believe them, and they will always be wrong, because you were wrong. (At least in live presentation, you can claim a momentary lapse or a human mistake. When you take the time to put your mistakes into a PowerPoint presentation, you're just fertilizing weeds.)
Make sure your spelling and grammar are correct. I trained my English students to disregard all electronic presentations with misspellings. It indicates poor editing, which indicates possible errors in fact. If you have trouble with spelling or grammar, get a friend to help you.
3. The teacher treats a PowerPoint presentation the way a lecturer treats notes.
The PowerPoint presentation should enhance your classroom presentation, not BE your classroom presentation. Why should I go to a live teacher in a live class and listen to the lecturer drone on reading directly off the screen, when I can just read the PowerPoint off the internet or a printout and get exactly the same information? You are in front of your class because you have the power to respond to your audience and guide them.
Don't feel bound to the presentation as stored in your computer. Feel free to skip slides if necessary. Use the white board to clarify the slide if the slide needs it. Interact with your students. Let them do the reading at least.
4. There are no pictures.
I want pictures. I love video. Sound is beautiful. I once saw a math PowerPoint that used cartoon sounds and animation to emphasize steps in a math problem and it made me happy just to watch it. I've seen lovely short videos that emphasized important points. If you're teaching a concrete vocabulary word, you ought to have a picture of the object the word stands for. If you're teaching an abstract vocabulary word, and you can find a picture that helps to explain the word, you ought to use it.
Of course, all of these things can be done without PowerPoint. The program just makes them very easy to keep track of, combine, and use. It's a tool, and it works well that way.
Even clip art is good if it relates to the concept.
5. Teachers leave a slide up when they have moved on to another subject.
I confess, I never erased my black or white boards until I wanted to put something new on them. This is the same concept, except the projection is more powerful than the chalk line. Feel free to put blank slides in your presentation so you can discuss a concept without distraction.
Feel free to have PowerPoint reveal concepts in sequence. Don't put everything up at once if it doesn't have to be there. This is the equivalent of using a piece of paper to cover a part of an overhead projection so that it can be revealed gradually.
If you use it, use it well.
Jeff Combe
PowerPoint is a wonderful program. I have used it in a variety of situations, and I have been in a variety of situations in which it has been used.
At its best, it is very entertaining. It keeps the information flowing. It gives access to a variety of visual and audio resources. It can be colorful and playful as well as factual. It can reinforce learning like no white board ever thought possible.
At its worst, it is deadly dull and factually incorrect.
In other words, it is a tool, no better and no worse than the worker who is using it.
Please please please (let me add another please if it will help) use it well.
The use of PowerPoint has little or nothing to do with age or experience. I have seen good and bad PowerPoint presentations at every level. I cannot tell you how many training sessions I have sat in (in a variety of situations in and out of school), taught by supposed experts, who gave awful presentations with poorly thought out PowerPoint presentations. I have likewise seen new teachers who were very good at it. And vice versa.
May I give a list of things that bug me when I see PowerPoint presentations? These are things that, I believe, make for terrible PowerPoint. My hope is that, if you know that they bug people, you will avoid them yourselves.
1. The font is unreadable.
This may be because the font is too small to be read throughout the room. It may be because of poor contrast (blue background, red letters, for example). It may be because the font is too ornate to be seen clearly. Perhaps the background has patterns that are too busy (a herringbone design, for example) to allow the letters to be read. Maybe there is too much to read.
Keep your written material short and readable. If you have to use many slides to get the information up, then so be it. One slide with hundreds of unreadable words makes me want to drop out of school--and I have a doctorate. Hundreds of slides with a few words and lots of pictures can make me happy. Happier, anyway.
2. The information is incorrect or incorrectly presented.
Check your facts. There is a power to electronic presentation that makes factually incorrect presentations as insidious as viruses. Your students will always believe them, and they will always be wrong, because you were wrong. (At least in live presentation, you can claim a momentary lapse or a human mistake. When you take the time to put your mistakes into a PowerPoint presentation, you're just fertilizing weeds.)
Make sure your spelling and grammar are correct. I trained my English students to disregard all electronic presentations with misspellings. It indicates poor editing, which indicates possible errors in fact. If you have trouble with spelling or grammar, get a friend to help you.
3. The teacher treats a PowerPoint presentation the way a lecturer treats notes.
The PowerPoint presentation should enhance your classroom presentation, not BE your classroom presentation. Why should I go to a live teacher in a live class and listen to the lecturer drone on reading directly off the screen, when I can just read the PowerPoint off the internet or a printout and get exactly the same information? You are in front of your class because you have the power to respond to your audience and guide them.
Don't feel bound to the presentation as stored in your computer. Feel free to skip slides if necessary. Use the white board to clarify the slide if the slide needs it. Interact with your students. Let them do the reading at least.
4. There are no pictures.
I want pictures. I love video. Sound is beautiful. I once saw a math PowerPoint that used cartoon sounds and animation to emphasize steps in a math problem and it made me happy just to watch it. I've seen lovely short videos that emphasized important points. If you're teaching a concrete vocabulary word, you ought to have a picture of the object the word stands for. If you're teaching an abstract vocabulary word, and you can find a picture that helps to explain the word, you ought to use it.
Of course, all of these things can be done without PowerPoint. The program just makes them very easy to keep track of, combine, and use. It's a tool, and it works well that way.
Even clip art is good if it relates to the concept.
5. Teachers leave a slide up when they have moved on to another subject.
I confess, I never erased my black or white boards until I wanted to put something new on them. This is the same concept, except the projection is more powerful than the chalk line. Feel free to put blank slides in your presentation so you can discuss a concept without distraction.
Feel free to have PowerPoint reveal concepts in sequence. Don't put everything up at once if it doesn't have to be there. This is the equivalent of using a piece of paper to cover a part of an overhead projection so that it can be revealed gradually.
If you use it, use it well.
Jeff Combe
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
NOT Post Literate
Hello everyone,
I enjoyed graduate school. It was fun to sit in groups and consider great questions and argue answers that were as yet indefensible. During my last stint as a student, we considered the question of whether or not we are entering a post-literate society.
To an English teacher, the mere suggestion that society will not be literate (and worse, that it won't NEED to be literate) is the worst kind of anathema. My feeling at the time was that if indeed our society is going to descend into "post literacy," I for one was going down fighting.
There is some evidence of movement toward post-literacy.
Very little reading is necessary for survival in our students' worlds. (We know that it's necessary in our adult world, but I 'm not always sure the kids realize that.) They write in semi-phonetic code; they read graphic novels; they read web pages with lots of icons and atavars and very little text; they copy and paste; and they watch YouTube.
Personally, I don't think things are as bleak as I'm making them sound. I don't think literacy is as lost as it was even 150 years ago, and I don't believe we are likely to ever return to 19th Century levels of illiteracy.
Still, we need to be realistic when we approach reading with our students--especially when we are asking them to read a difficult or boring text.
Some of us approach our students' poor reading skills and lack of interest in reading by having them avoid it. Other of us simply assume that by high school students should have good enough reading skills to tackle anything approved by the state, so we assign the reading and expect it to be read and understood. Both approaches are wrong.
We must first assume that our students need to read, whether they want to or not. The focus here is on their need. If we don't require reading, they may join the ranks of those who graduate from high school having never read a grade level text.
We must next prepare them for whatever text we'll be reading. We have to get them "into" the text. Sometimes they need background information; sometimes they need perspective ("This part is not important; we can skim it"; "Don't miss this part"; "The italics warn you that this is essential"); often they need key vocabulary (it may be given before, during, or after the reading, but it must be given). Almost always, they need motivation. (Sometimes the best motivation is answering honestly why something is being read: "The Constitution seems like a boring, legal document, but it is the reason we do everything we do in the United States. If one small word were different, our whole country would be different.")
Next, we must take them "through" the text. They must actually read it. There are a number of teacher tricks that we can use to have them accomplish this. Very often, we need to continue to motivate them throughout the reading. Honestly, my students always read when assigned in class--even those who expressed reluctance. Their motivation? I expected them to read and I didn't let them get away without reading. (I used a variety of tricks, but almost never lectures on the importance of reading. That was largely assumed.)
Word attack (recognizing and saying the words correctly) and fluency (reading with speed, accuracy, inflection, and emotional appropriateness) are important, but comprehension is supreme. It is possible to have excellent word attack and fluency but poor comprehension. After the reading is through, we must take the students "beyond" the text. They must enter understanding. They must use analysis (good, for example, in literature) or synthesis (try it in writing activities or role play) or application (perfect for science textbooks) or other high level thinking skills. We must guide them as they do it, however.
You may have noticed that I intended to highlight "into," "through," and "beyond." I have long thought of those words (they're not my idea, so they're in quotation marks) as a good structure to pin reading on. Leaving any of the three steps out can make the reading process painful, and we don't want it to be painful.
I reiterate. Our students are not post literate; they are only pre-skilled.
Jeff Combe
I enjoyed graduate school. It was fun to sit in groups and consider great questions and argue answers that were as yet indefensible. During my last stint as a student, we considered the question of whether or not we are entering a post-literate society.
To an English teacher, the mere suggestion that society will not be literate (and worse, that it won't NEED to be literate) is the worst kind of anathema. My feeling at the time was that if indeed our society is going to descend into "post literacy," I for one was going down fighting.
There is some evidence of movement toward post-literacy.
Very little reading is necessary for survival in our students' worlds. (We know that it's necessary in our adult world, but I 'm not always sure the kids realize that.) They write in semi-phonetic code; they read graphic novels; they read web pages with lots of icons and atavars and very little text; they copy and paste; and they watch YouTube.
Personally, I don't think things are as bleak as I'm making them sound. I don't think literacy is as lost as it was even 150 years ago, and I don't believe we are likely to ever return to 19th Century levels of illiteracy.
Still, we need to be realistic when we approach reading with our students--especially when we are asking them to read a difficult or boring text.
Some of us approach our students' poor reading skills and lack of interest in reading by having them avoid it. Other of us simply assume that by high school students should have good enough reading skills to tackle anything approved by the state, so we assign the reading and expect it to be read and understood. Both approaches are wrong.
We must first assume that our students need to read, whether they want to or not. The focus here is on their need. If we don't require reading, they may join the ranks of those who graduate from high school having never read a grade level text.
We must next prepare them for whatever text we'll be reading. We have to get them "into" the text. Sometimes they need background information; sometimes they need perspective ("This part is not important; we can skim it"; "Don't miss this part"; "The italics warn you that this is essential"); often they need key vocabulary (it may be given before, during, or after the reading, but it must be given). Almost always, they need motivation. (Sometimes the best motivation is answering honestly why something is being read: "The Constitution seems like a boring, legal document, but it is the reason we do everything we do in the United States. If one small word were different, our whole country would be different.")
Next, we must take them "through" the text. They must actually read it. There are a number of teacher tricks that we can use to have them accomplish this. Very often, we need to continue to motivate them throughout the reading. Honestly, my students always read when assigned in class--even those who expressed reluctance. Their motivation? I expected them to read and I didn't let them get away without reading. (I used a variety of tricks, but almost never lectures on the importance of reading. That was largely assumed.)
Word attack (recognizing and saying the words correctly) and fluency (reading with speed, accuracy, inflection, and emotional appropriateness) are important, but comprehension is supreme. It is possible to have excellent word attack and fluency but poor comprehension. After the reading is through, we must take the students "beyond" the text. They must enter understanding. They must use analysis (good, for example, in literature) or synthesis (try it in writing activities or role play) or application (perfect for science textbooks) or other high level thinking skills. We must guide them as they do it, however.
You may have noticed that I intended to highlight "into," "through," and "beyond." I have long thought of those words (they're not my idea, so they're in quotation marks) as a good structure to pin reading on. Leaving any of the three steps out can make the reading process painful, and we don't want it to be painful.
I reiterate. Our students are not post literate; they are only pre-skilled.
Jeff Combe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)