A Collaborative Approach to Implementing 21st Century Skills In A High School Senior Research Class

Bullard, Sherrie
IL, CO

O'Sullivan, M. K., & Dallas, K. B. (2010). A Collaborative approach to implementing 21st Century skills in a High school senior research class. Education Libraries, 33(1), 3-9.

Summary:
In this article the authors discuss that businesses and higher education leaders are looking for students with the ability to evaluate and analyze information and to use this information to solve real-world problems. These are the information literacy skills students need for the 21^st century. However, several recent studies on the ability of college freshmen to handle the rigor of college courses and research indicate that high school students are not being adequately prepared to apply these skills. The authors provide a case study of a collaborative effort between an English teacher and the high school librarian to better prepare high school seniors on how to locate reliable information, analyze the information and then determine how it can be applied to solving a real world issue or problem.
This article focuses on how a high school research paper class, as an example, can be designed and structured to give high school seniors an opportunity to experience what college level research and writing involves.
High school students need to be taught these sophisticated “higher-order” skills, such as the ability to locate and analyze complex information in order to solve real world problems.


Evaluation:

This class is not just about writing a longer research paper (10 to 15 pages). The intent of this class is to introduce high school seniors to what it is like to search a subject in depth, to formulate research questions and develop curiosities that go beyond the basic facts of a topic. By breaking the research paper process into a series of steps with individual, specific due dates, the teacher has been able to stress the importance of time management and developing effective work habits. These skill, in addition to the research skills involved, are critical for seniors as they prepare to make the transition to college. They also use the teacher librarian to help teach these skills. It’s like they took a “Bird Unit” and turned it into a “Big Think”!

Problems with Race to the Top

Race to the Top Leaves Children and Future Citizens Behind:

The Devastating Effects of Centralization, Standardization, and High Stakes Accountability

by Joe Onosko

http://democracyeducationjournal.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=home

ET

While researching Race to the Top and Common Core, I found this interesting article from the Democracy in Education Journal.  It gives eight reasons why he thinks RTT is a bad idea.  I was more interested in those who he thought would benefit from a more centralized, nationally controlled, standardized system, with enormous financial benefit to those participating. [Otherwise known as “if you clean your room you can have a cookie”]

Here is the list of potential beneficiaries: 

·         Those genuinely committed to equality of educational opportunity and who believe that only a centralized, federal plan can move the nation in this direction.

·         Those who believe more competition is needed to improve public schools, necessitating grant competitions (rather than proportional funding), national testing, and high- stakes accountability.

·         Dominant players in the educational assessment industry who see a whole lot of profi t potential.  

·         Corporate America, which spends billions a year on employee training and hopes to reduce a portion of their training costs through a better education system.

·         Those who believe that hierarchical, rational organization (including the power of technology, centralization, standardization, input/output models, quantitative data, and so on) is the best way to improve student achievement.

·         Cash-strapped governors and state department of education leaders who see Race to the Top as the only way to access millions of dollars in desperately needed revenue.

·         Free marketers and other charter- school proponents who’d like to see a partial or complete dismantling of public education by demonstrating the superiority of charters.

I was fine with the list until the last one:  charter schools.  I think public school education as it stands today is fine with much room for improvement.  But there are many who don’t fit well into a public school.  Public Charter schools, run well, fit this niche.  Both of my sons would have failed miserably at the public schools in my area.  Private schools weren't an option financially – and I didn't see much improvement in education for the money.  Both of my sons have flourished at public charter schools – first with a Montessori – themed K-8, and now at a College Prep, STEM-focused high school.

SAMR - taking it to the next level

Lauren Peters

IL - 21st Century Skills

SAMR Model

https://sites.google.com/a/msad60.org/technology-is-learning/samr-model

SAMR stands for Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. It is all about using technology while teaching.  The goal is to use technology to enhance the learning process.  Redefinition is the goal, so I will include it here.

Redefintion:  Computer technology allows for new tasks that were previously inconceivable. 

A classroom is asked to create a documentary video answering an essential question related to important concepts. Teams of students take on different subtopics and collaborate to create one final product.  Teams are expected to contact outside sources for information. 

At this level, common classroom tasks and computer technology exist not as ends but as supports for student centered learning.  Students learn content and skills in support of important concepts as they pursue the challenge of creating a professional quality video.  Collaboration becomes necessary and technology allows such communications to occur.  Questions and discussion are increasingly student generated.

Reuben R. Puentedura  takes it to a new level:

SAMR Model of Technology by Reuben R. Puentedura 

See his video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMazGEAiZ9c

Building a Better Teacher

Beverly Rupe

ET-Learning Styles, cognitive theory, teaching, teacher assessment

Green, E. (2014). Building a better teacher: How teaching works (and how to teach it to everyone). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

This book explores the history of efforts to transform teaching from ineffective rote methods to more creative approaches. It includes a discussion of the academic research leading to teaching reform beginning in the 1980s, and uses examples from classrooms to illustrate the differences between effective and ineffective methods. Engaging students, encouraging them to talk (using "academic discourse") and then listening to them to determine their needs are areas of focus in each of the classroom stories detailed in the book. The focus is on improving the art of teaching, which, according to the author, is a skill that can be taught. I found this book fascinating and very readable, and very pertinent to classroom teachers and TLs alike.

Common Core

Lauren Peters
ET

Common Core

According to a cutsie video on http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/ Common Core are the standards that each student should have at each grade.  Curriculum is still locally controlled to meet these standards. The standards are allegedly research and evidence based and meet national and international standards.

The English core standards can be found here:  http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/

The Math core standards can be found here:  http://www.corestandards.org/Math/

Most of the videos I found were against CC.  Here is one from the only Mathematician on the standards board who would not sign off on CC. http://vimeo.com/78006951?from=facebook

50 CC teachers websites:  http://www.teachthought.com/teaching/50-common-core-resources-for-teachers/

Co-Teaching with Student Teachers

By Terry Funk

CA 

DelColle, J. & Keenan, C. (2014). Co-Teaching partnerships for excellence in the age of accountability: A preliminary study of the effects of co-teaching in student teaching” (2015). NERA Conference Proceedings 2014. Paper 5. Retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera_2014/5

Summary: This article reports the findings from a pilot study in New Jersey at Richard Stockton College and sets the stage for continued research on Co-teaching with student teachers and host/master teachers. Traditionally, student teachers in New Jersey complete a third semester in a take-over model (in which they teach a class for 14 weeks by themselves). With the current State and National accountability standards emphasis on student test scores and the use of those scores to determine teacher performance, classroom teachers have been reluctant to have student teachers take over their classes. With this model the student teacher is an apprentice rather than peer of the master teacher. The master teacher makes explicit the workings of the classroom in an ongoing dialog, providing guidance and encouragement. In the present study, a control group of 32 students were assigned the traditional take-over model while the experimental group consisted of 15 students in the Co-teaching model. Host teachers in the experimental group had initial training about co-teaching and the option to complete an additional 3 unit Coaching and Mentoring graduate course tuition free. Measures were taken by survey, observation evaluation of host teacher (4 formative, 1 summative), and supervisors. Additionally in the experimental group, elementary reading scores and middle and high school teacher grades were collected. Similarities and differences between the groups were documented. Modest to significant gains for the experimental group included self-reported satisfaction levels among Co-teaching pairs, learning gains of varying magnitudes among students, degree of professionalism observed by supervisors, and host teacher growth.

Evaluation: The article is particularly important in a time when schools are challenged to increase the quality of their clinical partnerships. Student teaching experience is one of the most critical parts of teacher preparation and is where theory meets practice. As a retired special educator, I have some reservations about tying student grades to teacher performance. Indeed, some of the neediest children may not even be graded on State tests and if they are, then they are automatically considered performing below standard, even when they are making progress. To attract very qualified teachers to underperforming students is a challenge too. Aside from the politics, Co-teaching may be better for all concerned, including special needs students. There were limitations in this pilot that are being worked out in subsequent studies with new and better design/instruments. If research can show that students are performing well with this model then master teachers will be less anxious about State assessments and better partners in clinical practice.

Peer Review Article

By Terry Funk 
CA

Alabi, J. & Weare, Jr., W. H.  (2014). Peer review of teaching. Communications in Information Literacy, 8(2), 180-191.

Summary: This article is helpful to academic librarians who engage in instruction but may lack a teaching background. The authors have presented a review of the literature and best practices in peer review to help individuals improve in teaching.  A formal program is not necessary to start an informal process using key ideas in this article. Recommendations include: establishing trust, respect, and confidentiality; choosing a suitable partner; crucial communication during pre-observation, observation and post-observation; determining focus; making time and being ready for criticism.

Evaluation: This is a recent review of the literature done in 2014 with a narrowly defined focus on formative peer evaluations. It is both informative and succinct, detailing successful practices that can be tailored to one’s situation. The article is chock full of references and tools (documents and forms) to use for peer evaluation.