Common Core Standards

Hey, I just realized that I have this blog missing. So here it is. I watched the Common Core Standards video for secondary education, and I have to say I am very enthusiastic about its prospects and potential. Even though I know how beneficial it can be to allow states to manage their own education, I always thought it was kind of weird that they didn't have a very specific central curriculum. This makes it difficult, for example, for educational training gained in one state to apply in another state. Often even different parts of a single state may have vastly different goals. Applying a common core standard to every state, that they can build on further but that demands a certain minimum level across the nation, can do a lot to help students get a more global education and ameliorate many of the debates raging around the content of individual state curriculum. This could even have immediate practical benefits in the form of centralizing instruction materials and making things more efficient and cost-effective for schools and teachers. Though it is always important to let the individual community have its own say in the education of its children, I think these Common Core Standards is a good first step on the road to reform.

Are Teachers Even Necessary?

This article provides two contrasting viewpoints on the question of whether teacher-student interaction is truly necessary for the education of every single student. Though some students enter school ready to learn and engage with their teachers, there are always some students who are not as enthusiastic about their schooling, and there are many different ideas about why this is or how to counter it.

The first perspective is in favor of teachers. Bloggers Pernille Ripp and John Spencer say that the human touch of a teacher's instruction can never be replaced by technology, because only humans are able to truly understand other humans. The other perspective takes a Mark Twain-esque "never let school get in the way of education" approach - the author says that, despite graduating early with honors and being interested in education, her teachers weighed her down more than they helped her, which disrupted her passion for learning. She also suggests a variety of technological tools that can be used in place of standard face-to-face instruction to guide students learning more independently.

Personally I think the second view, that teachers are not necessarily a mandatory component of education, is right on. First of all, the first bloggers have no real basis in saying that the human touch is so important. I mean humans are great, and we have relied on human instruction since that was really the only way to do it up until now, but now that we have the opportunity to explore other methods of teaching due to incredible breakthroughs in technology, you have no real way of determining that these new methods won't perhaps prove just as useful.

Second, in the other class I'm taking, about multiculturalism in education, one of the big concepts is that as teachers we need to provide each student with whatever mode of instruction fits them the best, whatever will personally aid in their learning the most. If some students learn better from a more independent instruction that utilizes technology, who are we to say "No, you aren't learning right, you have to learn this from a teacher while sitting in a classroom for 6 hours a day?"


Fingal, D. (2012, March). Are Teachers Even Necessary? ISTE Learning and Leading Digital Edition. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/learning-and-leading/DigitalEditionMarch-April2012.aspx

From Degrading to De-Grading

This article offers an argument towards shifting our assessment system away from a rigorous grading metric and moving towards a system based more on teacher-student feedback, collaboration, and holistic assessment. Studies have shown that emphasizing the importance of letter grades can reduce student interest in learning in favor of achieving high marks, reducing students' preference for challenging tasks, and lowering the quality of student output. The author argues that grading is already pretty arbitrary, each grade just a function of an individual teacher's choices in assessing a student. He also argues that grades are not necessarily correlated with learning, and that the focus on grade takes attention away from actual learning. Grades also encourage cheating and contribute to a negative social atmosphere within schools. The author then attempts to counter some common objections, positing that the practical difficulties of making such a change should be viewed as problems to solve. Some of these problems or objections include that students are driven to succeed by grades, or that assessment for the rigors of higher learning necessitates the use of some quantitative metric due to the sheer amount of people that exist. The author acknowledges these difficulties and offers some ways, if not to abolish grades, to at least de-emphasize them within your classroom or school, such as not grading on a curve, not ranking students, or using an assessment system based primarily on teacher-student collaboration and feedback. Though it seems like there is no other way for one teacher to accurately assess their many students in the traditional educational environment, the author challenges the very structure of this environment and asks how we can radically reshape education to focus more on learning than grades.

I think the author provides a pretty good argument, all things considered. Grades aren't the end-all be-all, and its undeniable that on a basic level they distract from learning. I found the author's argument that grades are ultimately arbitrary inventions of an individual teacher to be most compelling; in this sense, the more holistic system isn't so different, in that they're both abstractions of a singular teacher's choices. While grades serve a purpose for colleges to judge applicants, it's arguable whether they offer any benefit to lower grade levels, especially in light of studies that discourage retention as a practice for its ineffectiveness in promoting achievement. However, in response to the question "Is there value in a grade? Are they still important?", I have to say yes. The arguments presented in this essay are good, but very idealistic. Such changes would require a radical overhaul of the structure of education and educational assessment, and perhaps even society itself. However, I believe that the further integration of technology into the educational environment will go a long way towards asserting this goal. Many of the changes needed for our system to become less dependent on a rigorous grading metric can be proportionally solved through the intelligent application of technological advances. The argument for getting rid of grades is one of many in a larger argument towards becoming a more global, connected, and democratic society through technology.

Kohn, A. (1999, March). From Degrading to De-Grading. High School Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/fdtd-g.htm

Bringing Computational Thinking to K12

This article provides an introduction to computational thinking and offers some insights as to its history and development as a conceptual and pedagogical practice. The article attempts to provide an overview of computational thinking by investigating the relationship between computer science and computational thinking, exploring how to define computational thinking in a way that is useful and relevant for educators, developing some strategies to bring computational thinking into the classroom for a wide range of subject matters, and assessing the necessary requirements and guidelines to integrating computational thinking within the K12 system. From what I understand, computational thinking generally appears to be a conceptual framework of thought in which logical thinking typical of use in computer science is emphasized. It also engenders a variety of other computer-related concepts for educational practice such as the increased use of computers in instruction or the integration of computational terminology into pedagogical language.

In response to the question, "Do you believe that learning should tap into computational thinking for students today; why or why not?" I offer a guarded yes and no. I think, in general, that it would be a good idea to update our educational system to acknowledge the ongoing technological revolution - some sort of reexamination of our basic institutions that addresses the potential of computers in education. But, as described in the article, I think computational thinking is too broadly defined to be of use in its current state. In its effort to stretch its relevancy to cover every facet of education, it has become too vague to distinguish itself from preestablished modes of thought. I agree with certain parts of computational thinking, such as the effort to rework the school system to integrate technology and technological understanding. But then they have all this other stuff about tying this to some ambiguously defined system of thought that encourages students to think like programmers or something. I don't think this approach is relevant or desirable for every single subject matter or mode of instruction. In addition many of their proposed changes seem pointless, such as the introduction of programming jargon into the classroom environment, or even not really different from current educational guidelines and strategies. In short, while I agree with some of the goals and methods of and reasons for computational thinking, I think it is too broad to be very relevant to teachers in its current state.

Barr, V. and Stephenson, C. (2011, March) Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12: What is Involved 
and What is the Role of the Computer Science Education Community? ACM Inroads. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Libraries/NETS_Refresh_Toolkit/Bringing_CT_to_K-12.sflb.ashx

Digital Libraries: Shifting the Landscape

This article describes the effort to digitize the world's books and speculates on the educational possibilities of ebooks. Educational institutions are hard at work with tech companies like Google at digitizing and making electronically available tens of thousands of books. The article describes the burgeoning usability of ebook readers - since this article was written in 2009, it's safe to assume that current technology surpasses what was available then, and that usability of ebooks has only improved by the standards of the educators interviewed in the article. Most interesting are the ways ebooks can be used in education: I was particularly intrigued by the automatic text-to-speech capabilities of many ebook readers, including the Kindle. The educational possibilities of this simple feature are endless - from helping the blind without braille to encouraging grapheme awareness in young readers.

My prompt is "What if every student had a Kindle?" I think this would on the whole be a great benefit to education. Ebooks are much more convenient than real books in many ways. You can fit any number of books inside one lightweight ebook, and as far as communicating non-fictional information goes, they're objectively superior to real books, which are often out of date. The initial price would admittedly be a high barrier to entry for most schools, but imagine the costs of maintaining a typical high school library. Building maintenance, book upkeep, paying librarians, etc. After a few years of using a ebook-only education, a school would doubtless make up for its costs. I don't think they do a lot for learning on their own, but they're definitely a more efficient way to handle what is currently handled by maintaining huge libraries of textbooks.

Possible downsides might include high costs due to damage or theft. Ereaders are pretty sturdy, but children have the mysterious potential to destroy literally almost anything. This could be improved by developing an even more sturdy ebook chassis specially designed for elementary schoolers. As far as theft goes, it's not as big of a problem as you'd think. Like many pieces of lended-out personal electronics, the school would have the ability to remotely disable functionality of any reader. Some readers even have rudimentary tracking devices. On the whole, I think the downsides are worth considering, but that they pale in comparison to the benefits switching to an ebook education can bring.


Bull, G. & Sites, M. (2009, August). Digital Libraries: Shifting the Landscape. ISTE Learning & Leading Digital Edition. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/learning-and-leading/digital-edition-august-2009.aspx

Virtual Field Trips

This article describes how virtual field trips (VFTs) can benefit teachers. There are two types of VFTs - asynchronous (non-realtime) VFTs are basically educational websites that pretend to offer a field trip experience, while synchronous (realtime) VFTs are essentially field trips conducted via videoconferencing. Rather than actually travel a long distance for a real field trip, a classroom can take an interactive video tour with an expert tour guide, live and in realtime over the internet. VFT claims to be the next best thing to being there in person. Many organizations offer this service, from museums and historical sites to science labs and NASA centers. What's even cooler is that many of these VFTs offer tours and lesson plans that directly tie into the K12 curriculum. So not only will the experts give the students an educational tour of their facility, but they will give lessons that directly supplement their classroom education. For example, you could schedule a VFT with the Baseball Hall of Fame for a lesson on batting averages that ties into the math lessons your class does every day - all on targeted grade levels. I went and checked out the Baseball Hall of Fame's site, and they actually offer a pretty wide variety of comprehensive lesson plans, from statistics and averages to even a series of lessons about the civil rights movement.

I think VFTs are a very interesting way to supplement instruction. It can't be denied that being able to actually see places and talk to experts would certainly engage students more than the alternative. For example, why would a class in Kansas care about marine biology? Well maybe they would be more interested if they could take a VFT of an ocean lab. However, I am concerned about the relative cost. It is important not to be too blinded by fancy technology, and instead look at what service this provides and how much it costs. What this amounts to is hiring a professor to come in and teach your class for an hour or two, and it's not likely that your school has the capability. The article said that less than 1/3 of schools nationwide have the necessary equipment for this technology. If your school is in that minority that has the capability - great. For such schools, VFTs are a great way to interest your students by letting them directly engage with the material they're studying. If not, setting up the high-tech videoconferencing equipment that the VFT-providing organizations rely upon seems to be pretty expensive, and I don't think purchasing the equipment provides enough benefit to be a very high priority for most schools. And despite the name "Virtual Field Trip," I think these are hardly a complete replacement for a real field trip. These days, students look at computer screens on a daily basis - one could argue a VFT is just another day of staring at a screen. While VFTs might be more engaging than regular instruction, nothing should be able to compare with being able to actually see the place with your own eyes. Field trips play an important role in student development by letting them physically engage with the material, and sitting in class watching a screen will never be a wholly equal substitute.

VFTs are an innovative and engaging way to supplement instruction in technologically capable classrooms, but the high barrier to entry for most schools in America means that most teachers should probably first look into less costly and more educational ways to integrate technology into the classroom.

Is Blogging Worth The Risk?

Hey class, I know this is a little late, hopefully someone will comment on it or I get partial credit or something. Its been a little hard for me to get to my homework before the weekend starts. Anyway, the question is: Is blogging worth the risk? My answer is: Yes, definitely.

I think the question is actually pretty dishonest, because "worth the risk" implies that there actually is a risk factor inherent in the process itself, when in fact any risk in this proposition involves irresponsible teachers. And irresponsible teachers are definitely not worth the risk to keep around. As an analogy, blogging is no more dangerous than driving a car, as long as you know the rules of the road... but if you don't you are asking for a horrible accident.

It's 2012 and no matter how computer-illiterate you are, everyone should know by now what the internet is and how it functions. It's a device that allows anyone to communicate with anyone else, with little restriction on privacy. Any rational teacher should understand automatically, just from this description, that putting any sort of information on the internet that you want to keep private is an irresponsible action.

So if its really this simple, why is there such a debate? If a teacher is going to maintain a professional blog, he needs to understand these simple truths. I don't think we need any sort of teacher education program to get across this very basic fact. If a teacher is going to break his professional demeanor and communicate irresponsibly about his job in any way - not just online - then he has no business teaching in the first place.