Language requirement: Seat time or fluency?

Pat Bassett, head of the National Association of Independent Schools, has been writing a series of blog posts about the concepts of 21st century skills.  This month he looked at the concept of communication, which is one of particular interest to world language teachers.  This excerpt seems to be particularly compelling and a much more in line with my own thoughts about language learning than some of the other opinions out there about the benefits of being able to communicate in more than one language.

[...] sadly, spoken fluency is not yet the outcome of foreign language instruction in the American educational system (while fluency in English is the outcome of instruction in all of the 32 countries I’ve visited and spoken in over my years at NAIS), it soon will be in the independent school of the future. How do I know this? Because I learned from the president of Stanford on that panel we served on that Stanford’s new expectation of it students is to demand spoken “fluency” in order to test out of the foreign language requirement: almost no one (who is not already a native speaker of a language other than English) passes it — and enrollments in upper level foreign language courses beyond the proficiency requirement are growing at Stanford.

I join Bassett in his lamenting the lack of spoken fluency as an outcome (or even a stated aspiration) in our schools.  Opportunities for secondary schools to look to university instruction and policy as an inspiration for emulation is rare.  But the concept of required spoken fluency is an interesting one.  I wouldn't want to institute some sort of standardized testing at my school (or any school), but perhaps a shift in philosophy about what is required.  Currently we require two years of the same language.  Why?  Why not require a conversation? Or a simulation?  We have challenging grammar heavy courses with no clear goal (that the students understand) or purpose or desired outcome.  Some students will continue on to the third year and beyond, but many will not, and will leave the program with a bitter taste for learning a language.

An Activity for Thinking About World Language Programs

On our curriculum day the other week our middle school and high school language departments had a rare joint meeting. It was such a fun chance to spend time with the educators across campus while thinking about our shared purpose and how do we move forward.



This was our plan:
Homework: Read the attached article. Or click HERE to read it online. 
Pay special attention to the author's point #5:
(excerpted here:)


5. The world is much more open, and events abroad affect the lives of Americans more than ever before. This makes it essential that the educational experience breed cosmopolitanism — that students have international experiences, and classes in the social sciences draw on examples from around the world. It seems logical, too, that more in the way of language study be expected of students. I am not so sure.

English’s emergence as the global language, along with the rapid progress in machine translation and the fragmentation of languages spoken around the world, make it less clear that the substantial investment necessary to speak a foreign tongue is universally worthwhile. While there is no gainsaying the insights that come from mastering a language, it will over time become less essential in doing business in Asia, treating patients in Africa or helping resolve conflicts in the Middle East.

In Meeting: 
This article presents a particular world view.  Whether you agree with this or not,  (and there are certainly criticisms to this position) the reality is that the world is changing quickly as are assumptions and perceptions about language study.   We suspect that most of us see it as more valuable than this author. 


Our essential question for the next 90 minutes is:
What are the things that our 6-12 language program needs to do in order to be as relevant as possible in the development and lives of our students? How do we want to define language learning for our students?


Here are our tasks:  
1. (15 minutes)
What are the essential elements of our language program?
What do we want our students to be able to do/ know / understand when they leave our program?
2. (30 minutes) 
Eliminate the current reality of our language program.  Start from the ground up and redesign the ideal 6-12 vision. There are NO barriers.  What should it look like?  What would the "requirements" be?  What would characterize our classes?  Would there be classes?
3. (10 minutes) 
In your group, design a presentation (3 minutes)  of your new program to present to the board of trustees of Punahou School.  Compel them to okay the change from the current reality to your vision.
4. Presentations and questions 


This plan was sent to teachers prior to the meeting and the results were really exciting.  Some folks came to the discussion with a detailed proposal to eliminate the middle school world language program as it is (5 different languages) and replace it with a multi-lingulal world cultures program in which all of the students would participate.  Ideas about de-tracking, increasing emphasis on spoken communication and cross-cultural understanding emerged.  Another recurring theme in the groups presentations was the essential role of travel and in-country living plays (or has played) in language acquisition. Teachers wondered together about the role of technology can play in facilitating cross-cultural exchanges and relationships.


It was a great day of thinking and wondering and imagining big.  Now we have to figure out what things that we dreamed about make sense, and then just figure out how to get there.  That should be as easy (but as much fun!) as Jet Skiing across the ocean.

Some Readings on Cognitive Science (for 2/13/12)

Meltzoff, A. N., Kuhl, P. K., Movellan, J., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2009). Foundations for a new science of learning. Science, 325(5938), 284-288. doi:10.1126/science.1175626

This article discusses the connection between learning theory, psychology and machine learning.  The take away highlights (particularly for a language teacher) are about the importance of social interaction in learning.  It cites many studies that pertain to early childhood development, but there are interesting and important things that apply to all age groups.  For example, children who are simple exposed to sounds in a foreign language via TV or radio learn much less than children who interact with humans in the language.  Researchers are developing robots that can interact in more social ways, and reported findings of an interactive robot increasing learning when compared to tv.  (seems like that is what we are seeing with iOS apps for kids and language).  The authors talk about three traits of human learning: imitation, shared attention and empathy and social emotions.  It would be interesting to examine language course based on those three elements.  

Hoadley, C., & Van Haneghan, J. P. .(2012) The learning sciences: Where they came from and what it means for instructional designers. In. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. [Note: online preprint]

This book chapter gives a brief historical background of learning theory from behaviorism to cognitivism and into more recently developed theories such as those in the realm of communities of practice and anchored instruction.  This is a really helpful resource to use when looking at theory as it applies to instructional design and learning science.  This sums up the sources that support the notion of deep, enduring and transferable and meaningful learning.

Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 79-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [From AECT, free access for members]

This chapter explored the current reality of cognitive science as it relates to learning.  Winn groups these new developments into four categories: systems theoretical frameworks, biological frameworks, approaches based on cognitive neuroscience, and neural networks.   Then there is an extensive historical background.  Woah.  Wondering about chunking, embeddeness, embodiment or adaption?  It is all there.

Also, the introduction provides a sharp criticism of constructivism as having the dangerous potential to value anything that is student produced as inherently of intellectual value.  It makes me think of crappy projects that my students turn in but fit into a decent grade based on the rubric—not sure I agree with the critique, but interesting to read. 

The final section "Cognitive Theory and Educational Technology" is hugely useful for understanding the basis of the field of educational technology and also why some things appear to be "stuck" or harder to make changes.  It describes the legacy of behaviorism in instructional design and the weakness that is born out of the need for specificity given the multitude of combinations and compounding variables in this line of work.  It is hard to generalize anything!  It is a good summary to use as a reference when thinking about methodologies as it points out many of the real-life complications in instructional design. 

Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don't students like school? Because the mind is not designed for thinking. American Educator, 33(1), 4-13.

This magazine article is written for teachers and administrators.  It presents some learning about cognitive science from the perspective that thinking is hard, and people will avoid doing it.  This statement sets the stage for an explanation about what are the optimal conditions for encouraging, rewarding and fostering thinking in our students.  The author emphasizes an understanding of prior knowledge, the value of success and variety, as things to keep in mind when hoping to craft an environment in which students learn, and like it. 

 Willingham, D. T. (2009). Three problems in the marriage of neuroscience and education. Cortex, 45(4), 544-545. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2008.05.009

This article begins by emphasizing the differenced between natural sciences (biology, neuroscience, etc. . . ) and artificial sciences (economics, education etc. . . ).  As he describes, artificial sciences are driven by goals, whereas natural sciences seek to explain or describe a given phenomenon. Their ability to inform each other is limited. 

A summary of his thoughts:

Any marriage will be more successful when each partner has realistic expectations of the other. Educators should expect that neuroscience (1) will not be prescriptive; (2) will re- main silent on educational goals that are incompatible neuroscientific analysis (e.g., aesthetic training), and will omit levels of analysis beyond the individual, and; (3) neuroscience will prove helpful on targeted questions at a more- fine grained level of analysis such as how people read, learn, and attend, but these data will only be useful in the context of well-developed behavioral theory.

Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(5), 32-35. doi: 10.1080/00091383.2010.503139

This article describes the lack of evidence for the success of instructional design based on learning styles.  The authors do support the notion that people will have difference preferences for how they learn, but it goes on to say that there is no evidence to suggest that catering to these preferences improves learning.  The article also includes an interesting discussion about why this myth has persisted.  First, it feels good; it values all people and their different strengths—who could argue against that?  Also, it has been impacted by confirmation bias and is now considered common knowledge.  The bottom line is that knowing your students, and understanding their prior knowledge and interests can help them learn, but there is not scientific basis for learning styles and differentiation on their behalf as helping learning.  It feels funny to read this and feel a little defensive—I so want to support each student that I almost find myself wanting to suppress this article.  But then at the end they offer Mindset, by Carol Dweck as a reference, and I am back to wanting to pass it out.  We don't need to use fuzzy science to encourage supporting our students as individuals—there is plenty of real science to support and justify those desires. 

Some Readings on Learning and Communication (for Feb 6, 2012)

And the reading journal continues.  This week, focusing on learning theory and communications theory.

Martinez, S., & Prensky, M. (2011). Point / Counterpoint: Is the digital native a myth? Learning & Leading with Technology, 5191(November), 6-7.

This is a magazine (ISTE Newsletter) article presenting two sides of the digital native discussion.  On the one hand there is the concept that we have to consider the increased comfort that most school age students with technology, but, as the counterpoint argues, this reality cannot give educators the permission to sit back and throw their arms in the air saying: "well, I'll never catch up with my students."  Not sure where I fall on these two sides—I can see validity in elements of each argument.

Siemens, G. (2009, July 10). Tools and our brain. [Blog]. Elearnspace.

This short blog post frames the discussion of how technology impacts the physiology of our brains. " We have a reciprocal relationship with tools: we use them, they change us." Learning changes the brain, we know this now—it seems like maybe even since this was written two years ago, the paradigm in this understanding has shifted—but maybe that is just my own sense of this.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x

This paper seeks to chill people out about the debate about digital natives or net generation by framing the issues as proper research questions.  The authors describe the literature about these groups, and the debate over the need to radically shift education to meet the needs of these "new" students.  Then, they go on to encourage investigations that will further the discussion, for learning's sake:

 The time has come for a considered and disinterested examination of the assumptions underpinning claims about digital natives such that researchable issues can be identified and dispassionately investigated. This is not to say that young people are not engaged and interested in technology and that technology might not support effective learning. It is to call for considered and rigorous investigation that includes the perspectives of young people and their teachers, and genuinely seeks to understand the situation before proclaiming the need for widespread change.

This seems like a really important rallying cry, and could be applied to any area or current debate in the field of educational technology.  Don't make quick claims.  Have data to support change.  Don't be terrified. 

Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the “digital natives” debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321-331. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x

Same authors, fast-forward two years.  They categorize the lit review into the following sections: Research on access to technology, research on technology-based activities, key issues for educational researchers, conceptualizing the issues, and Advancing the debate over "digital-natives".  This is a more developed presentation of the same concept.  This is a much better and richer paper, than Bennett& Matton 2008, for learning about the discussions surrounding this area of inquiry.  Of interest to me in this article is the concept "networked individualism" as a framework for investigating this issue.  The more I read this article, the more I thought that is an area in which I have real interest.  

Longman, D., & Green, K. (2011). Digital enlightenment: The myth of the disappearing teacher. CELT: Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 4, 121-126.

This study explores the myth that the world of ubiquitous online resources decreases the need for teachers.  It nudges us toward teacher as curator model as opposed to teacher as holder of knowledge.  The research consists of interviews with university professors in the UK.  The most important conclusion seems to be: "the teacher’s role remains central to the fulfilling engagement of students in their learning." 

An interesting element of this discussion explores the complexity of how teachers interact with the tools that facilitate learning for students (course management systems, web services, etc. . . ) This element of the discussion is interesting as it nudges us to explore the assumptions that the teachers bring to the table and continue to ask the questions about the disappearing teacher in a way that isn't just based on allowing instruction to continue as it always has.  The teacher, as we once thought of it, might just disappear, as maybe it should.    But teachers, no, I don't think they will fade from utility, and this research supports that.

                                                                                         

Jones, A. D. (2009, October 9). Learning theories and e-learning. [Blog]. The weblog of (A) David Jones: Another voice in the blogosphere.

This blog post is a lit review from a developing dissertation.  It describes the four levels of learning theory: epistemology, descriptive theories, learning theories and instructional design theories.  The concluding paragraph ends with the following synthesis of his thinking:

Dede (2008) makes a similar point that no application of technology to learning and teaching is universally good. Instead the best approach is to analyze the nature of the curriculum, students, and teachers in order to select the appropriate tools, applications, media and environments (Dede 2008).

This supports the paradigm that instructional design, good teaching, effective administration of programs is deeply local and specific to the environment, culture and all-around unique complex interplay that occurs in every individual school.  This post emphasizes this and re-applies this concept to the notion of developing e-learning environments. 

Janzen, K. J., Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2011). Aligning the quantum perspective of learning to instructional design : Exploring the seven definitive questions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 56-73.

This article describes the quantum perspective of learning ("Connection, entanglement, and constant communication configure the basis of the quantum perspective of learning.") by waking the reader through the seven definitive questions. 1. How does learning occur? 2. What factors influence learning? 3. What is the role of memory? 4.  How does the transfer of knowledge occur? 5. What types of learning are best explained? 6. What is the relevance to instructional design? 7. How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning?

Reading this article makes me think that, unknowingly, I have been drawn to the quantum perspective in my own course design this year.  The whole idea is a little too Heidegger, Being in Time (aka: hard to get my head around) but when the authors do give concrete examples they are line up with what I try to do in class:

These include encouraging goal setting (both in the short and long term), self-analysis through writing/sharing, providing possibilities to extend thinking through the use of well- placed questions, the provision of multiple alternatives, joint problem finding and problem solving, offering social and emotional support, encouraging risk-taking, assisting students to find their own voices, and finally, modeling “ways of being” (p. 210).

Robinson, R., Molenda, M., & Rezabek, L. (2007). Facilitating learning. In A. Januszewski, M. Molenda & P. Harris (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (2nd ed., pp. 15-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

This ACET book chapter explored the "facilitating learning" element of the definition of educational technology.  It is surprising how controversial that simple phrase can be when flushed out to its full extent.  The chapter has a useful table of the "APA's learner-centered psychological principles" from which to pull research topics.

This chapter is theoretical, but in the kind of meaningful way that it would be good to read a hundred times over.  I hope to return to it as I look more closely at learning theory and shape my thinking about both what I do as a teacher and instructional designer and what I want to do for my research. 

Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. In J. Voogt & G. A. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 43-62). New York, NY: Springer.

How 'bout that? This chapter was the basis for much of what I found really compelling about the blog post by Jones (2009).  So I was happy to read the original thinking.    The chapter goes through behaviorist instructional technologies, cognitivist instructional technologies and then constructivist instructional technologies.  In short, this chapter warns against the fruitless quest for the "silver bullet" and encourages a perspective based on the following world view:

To progress, the field of instructional design must recognize that learning is a human activity quite diverse in its manifestations from person to person, and even from day to day. The emphasis can then shift to developing pedagogical media that provide many alternative ways of teaching, which learners select as they engage in their educational experiences.

I am a Dede fan. Now following him on Twitter (which is how I most commonly display my respect). 

Foulger, D. (2004). Models of the Communication Process. Communication.

In this paper (which is available on Foulger's website) we were asked to focus on the two models of communication. 

First: 

And then this:

 

The question seems to be, how can education shift from the former to the latter.  This reminds me of all of the flow charts and idea diagrams that we looked at in a meeting today talking about curriculum and lesson design.  These charts are really the basis for those conversations.  Where do we begin? From where should content be generated? What is the balance of consumption and creation? This figure 6 is really useful for thinking about instructional design.  I'm going to put it on my wall, since it seems like finding this fellow on twitter is not going to happen. 

Bricks and Mortar?

After the third full day of work shopping here with my fellow GOA teachers, I feel like I have learned so much from my new group of colleagues and friends.  One of the great gifts of this time is the time itself.  We have been invited to work on our courses.  We have set up shop in one of the beautiful conference rooms here at Islandwood and we have short little instructional workshops, then work time, then show and tells, with fun and amazing meals sprinkled in between it all.  A typical work session is a few hours long and at any given moment there are some folks chatting about an idea, bouncing layout or structure questions off each other, and others with their headphones on, working away.  And then when folks share what they have been working on, in the show and tell sessions-- wow!  So much thought and effort is going into these classes-- I'm thrilled for all of the students that get to take them this fall.  

 

I've also been wondering today about the feasibility of recreating this experience we are having-- an intensive teacher workshop-- in an online environment.  It could be done; the work would likely happen, but I wonder if I would learn as much.  I'm thinking about the dinner conversations, the walks in the woods, the fun post-dinner chatter and sharing pictures of our lives outside of this work.  I guess that can happen on-line too, but I am so grateful to have met these folks face to face.  

Day One GOA Teacher Workshop

It has been an overwhelming and exciting day, to say the least.  I have had great meals and great conversations with folks here.  We had some time to reflect on on-line instruction, learn a bit about our learning management system, Haiku, and then we had some time to work in our "playground" courses.  While there were moments while I still felt immersed in my Summer School work in Honolulu, the permission to take time to do this work has been such a remarkable gift!  I am learning so much and have so much more to learn.  Here is a quick video look at some of what we did today:

TEDx Overlake Viewing Party

We are hosting a viewing event for TEDx Overlake in Honolulu.  Please be in touch if you would like to attend!

Escritura (Writing Process)

Been struggling all year with writing in my Spanish 5 class.  How do I get kids to write without compromising themselves or second guessing their linguistic abilities?  Without cheating?  What is cheating?  Do we decide together?  Do I tell them?  Do I require drafts?  Only assign writing in class on paper?

I have toyed with all those things and just today, I think it is finally going well.  Last Friday before break they wrote collaborative one-act plays about two sides of the same person.  (Based on She and Ella in Coser y Cantar by Dolores Prida).  They were all in a circle and in groups of three, each group had two minutes with they play, then they had to pass it on and work on another.  I think in 45 minutes we wrote 4 plays, as a class.  They were a little irreverent (okay-- a lot irreverent, but it was the last day before vacation), but it was fun, and funny, and we were all working together and most of us were writing. 

Then today they started work on their individual projects.  Same idea:  a one act play with two charachters representing two sides of one person.  We made a rubric together then they each began work on a google doc.  They had to invite another spanish speaker (someone in the class or elsewhere) and me.  So while the wrote, I looked over their progress and sent them little notes in the chat feature, or made some collaborative edits and could see their progress as they were writing. 

Another feature we have added is that all words that they look up, or use a translator to find, need to be in red, and then they have to put a definition of the word, in Spanish, at the end of their work.  This seems to be going well too and then we can use the lists as learning opportunities for the rest of the students when we do the peer reviews.  That will be next week.  Then they will perform their plays.  I wonder if they will let me video them?!

An ongoing discussion: Sharing and Learning

We are engaged in discussions at our school about how to best share what we do well in our school to both elevate the level teaching and learning at our own school and also provide a public service to schools in the state and beyond. We would like to create an forum for a illuminating great teaching and practice so that others may see it.

It is kind of like just opening the doors on the classrooms for others to see and this is not, as our head of school points out, a new idea-- there are schools all over the country trying to do this work. Still, this quest towards transparency creates a tension with teachers' tendency towards (and love of) autonomy. Some of the comments in an exploratory discussion today demonstrated this tension.

First there is the classic fear of letting anyone in (literally or figuratively) to your classroom. There are some departments that do a great job fostering an environment where sharing practice is the norm, and many more where this is a work in progress. How can this initiative be presented in a way that doesn't elicit fear from those who fall into this category?

Another teacher suggested a big chunk of time (weeks) that we could carve out of the school year to address this. A neat idea, but it goes against the notion of on-going and embedded on the job learning and improvement. We hope to share accessible, easily digestible and searchable information that can help teachers do their work better.

The discussion then turned to the ease with which younger people (I would say more connected) share the goings on of their lives, and that perhaps this shift to sharing just feels hard to this group (with an average age closer to fifty than thirty, as one administrator pointed out). Couldn't agree more! The simple idea of a social network and leveraging the connections that you have and sorting information based on how those that you trust feel about it is hardly new to those of us engaged at any level in an on-line presence (twitter, Facebook, Ning, etc. . . ). (as pointed out by @dkiang)

Then came the notion that the most valuable stream of information might come from the kids. One teacher suggested that if she could access information from students about what was working for them (or not) in their classes, she would spend the time to read that. I see lots of that kind of data from former and current students who I am friends with on Facebook
(which I know people have a variety of opinions about). And while it sometimes informs my practice, I get much better data from directed and pointed questions of my current students, who I survey often about my classes.

In any event, I am energized by these types of questions on a Monday morning in early October. No conclusions here, just sorting out some ideas. Any thoughts?