6 Essentials for Student-Owned Learning

I think every educator wants student ownership of learning to be THE goal of teaching and learning. When you "own" something, you will protect it, take pride in it, and seek ways to increase its value. (see Frontier & Rickabaugh's "self" lever)  That's a life-long learner.  Take a look at the Danielson Framework for Teaching and note that the the difference between a proficient and distinguished teacher is the level of student-initiated learning taking place in a classroom.

And none of it happens by accident.  It all happens by design.
Here are 6 essentials for student-owned learning that I have uncovered this school year.

Norms of a 5th grade class

Essential #1 - Development of classroom norms so that everyone knows how to function within the group. 
From day one, collaboratively setting class norms tells students "You have a voice here. You have choices here. You are able to hold yourself and others to these norms. Everyone here has a role to play, and this is how we function together."  This is the first step in creating the conditions for student-owned learning.

"Wall of Great Questions"

Essential #2 - Develop a culture that values questioning.  
Students cannot initiate learning unless questions are valued. Humans are naturally inquisitive, but schools are an artificial construct designed to efficiently pass on knowledge. Don't let school drive out children's natural instinct to wonder and question. If you are a teacher, publicly celebrate quality questions.  If you are a parent, ask your child what questions he/she asks at school each day. You can tell so much about people from the questions they ask.

Essential #3 - Clear learning targets & success criteria every lesson so that students know what to learn and how to know when they've achieved it. 

Learning Target & Look For's

How is today's class different from yesterday's?  What am I learning today that I never learned before?  Please make me curious about something and tell me what I need to do to learn it well.  The research of John Hattie about teacher clarity (d=.75) and Brookhart & Moss (learning target theory) will have you rethinking lesson design to creates the conditions for student-owned learning.

Essential #4 - Teach students how to have conversations about their work.
If the only conversation about a piece of student work is between the teacher and the student, then you've just missed 25 other possible conversations students could have had about their work in your classroom. Students will talk to their peers openly and honestly about their work - The problem is they don't know how to have those conversations.  Provide prompts. Model it. Monitor it. Make time for it. Celebrate it when you see it.

Provide prompts for student conversations

Essential #5 - Publicly recognize students who are helping others along their journey.
Once your class begins to take ownership of its learning, you will see students helping each other more than ever.  While you are helping one student, ten other helpful conversations are taking place that you don't see or hear.  Find a way to acknowledge those conversations.  Ask kids "Who helped you today?  What did they do to help you?"  Celebrate respect, helpfulness, and teamwork and it will multiply.

Essential #6 - Formative feedback.  Maximize personal conversations as the main source of feedback.
We learn about what we value, but how do kids learn to value something they can't see or hold? How do you make knowledge and understanding a valuable commodity in your building? When teachers provide personal feedback, students work harder and see value in the process, the product, and the person helping them.  That is an essential component of student-owned learning.

Personalization vs. Specialization

Do you personalize learning or specialize learning?
What might be the difference?

Jerome Bruner makes reference to personalized learning in his early works, The Process of Education (1960) and Towards a Theory of Instruction (1966).  This quote struck me as especially powerful when thinking about personalized education:

"To personalize knowledge one does not simply link it to the familiar.
Rather, one makes the familiar an instance of a more general case and thereby produces awareness of it" (1966, p. 161).

Educators who think personalized learning should be tailored specifically to the interests of a student are missing the point.  To make a child's entire education about football, music, robots, or anything else is doing the opposite of what education should be.  Education should open a child's eyes to make broad connections while transmitting culture.  Letting a child focus on one small slice of life for overly extended amounts of time does not build connections.

Bruner's view of instruction moves the child into ever wider concentric circles, each one with a larger worldview.  A continual movement from specific to general.  Personalized learning uses what is familiar to aid this movement.  To me, this is the opposite of specialization, in which a student becomes more and more adept at a single skill or domain.  Specializing learning in this way (letting a child focus exclusively on one type of content) is harmful to young students in the long run.

Bruner & the Role of Teachers

In the previous two posts (here & here), I wrote about the early work and legacy of Jerome Bruner. Bruner's works calls us to take a closer look at the role and purpose of teachers.

Bruner called education a "social intervention" (22) and said that every generation needs to redefine the purpose of education for itself.  Because society is constantly re-inventing itself, so too must education continue to re-invent itself.

The natural world is the place for spontaneous, authentic learning - school is an artificial environment we have created for learning out of necessity.  But what does that mean for the role of a teacher?  Bruner says "Instruction should have an edge over 'spontaneous' learning" (44).  So the job of a teacher is to make sure instruction builds upon knowledge and skills at a faster rate than a student could on his/her own.

This is exactly the work of the Hattie study (2009).  Hattie's mantra of "Know thy impact" comes from his meta-study which compares the effect sizes of various instructional strategies on achievement.  A few strategies and policies had a reverse effect on achievement (a negative effect size), some are called "Developmental effects" (what a student would likely achieve without a teacher), "Teacher effects", and finally a zone of "Desired effects" - strategies that had an effect above the average effect size of 0.40 in the study.  This is Hattie's "hinge point".

It should not be surprising, then, that the highest ranking strategies in the Hattie study are foreseen 50 years ago in Bruner's early writings.  The words might be different now, but Bruner foresaw the strategies teachers needed to use to keep that "edge".  Here are some examples:
• Piagetian programs - Bruner was a strong believer in matching learning to Piagetian stages
• Formative Evaluation and Feedback - Bruner saw feedback as important not just for achievement in the moment, but also for connecting the student to his/her greater goals.  Calling this the teacher's "special role", Bruner says learners can usually recognize if his/her immediate efforts worked or not, but a teacher's feedback is needed to show students if their work is leading to the eventual goal (51).
• Acceleration - allowing students to move forward at their own pace, jumping ahead when possible
• Problem-solving - Curiosity is the first intrinsic motivator for learning according to Bruner.

The teacher's role is a "provisional" role in Bruner's words.  We teach to create independence from a teacher.  This means helping students discover the ability within themselves to continue to learn on their own - to transmit culture without aid.  To that end, Bruner says (96):

"For if we do nothing else, we should somehow give to children a respect for their own powers of thinking, for their power to generate good questions, to come up with interesting informed guesses."

Do We Have a Theory of Instruction?

After Jerome Bruner finished The Process of Education (see my previous blog), he took several years to work with children and teachers to uncover the guiding principles of quality instruction.  By the title of his 1966 book, Toward a Theory of Instruction, you can guess that Bruner does not provide a specific answer, but moves us "towards" a theory of quality instruction.

But now the question - 50 years after Bruner's book:
Do we have a theory of instruction today?

Charlotte Danielson has a Framework for Teaching.
James Stronge gives us Qualities of Effective Teachers.
Todd Whitaker tells us What Great Teachers Do Differently.
Doug Lemov offers a program to Teach Like a Champion.
The list goes on and on, and many of these books also come in versions for administrators.

But do we have an actual theory of instruction?
Should we?  Is it even possible?

Bruner makes some important points that would serve us well to remember.
Going to school has become so commonplace for us, that we have forgotten that:
• Schools are an artificial environment for learning.  As a species, our natural environment for learning and problem solving is the world itself.
• Humans are the only species that does not begin learning anew with each generation (113).
• Schools exist not to "get knowledge across" (73), but to transmit culture - the skills, values, style, technology, and wisdom that "produces more effective and zestful human beings" (149) with each succeeding generation.
• We are intrinsically wired to learn.  Bruner list four motives for learning - curiosity, competence, the desire to emulate a model, and social reciprocity (114).
• Instruction is really just an effort to assist and shape growth (1).

If we take those points into account, then a teacher's vocation is to:
• channel curiosity through real-world problem solving
• allow students to demonstrate efficacy
• be a model learner for students to emulate
• create social environments where students want to give to each other by taking on various roles

So what is a theory of instruction according to Bruner?  It is prescriptive (meaning it sets forth the best way to achieve knowledge or a skill) and it is normative (meaning it is generic and comparable across all subjects and ages).  Returning to our initial question: Why don't we have a theory of instruction after all this time?

Probably because Bruner (and others before and after Bruner such as Dewey and Robinson) realized that "people do not come in standard shapes and sizes" (Robinson, 2015, p. 25).  That doesn't just mean students - it means teachers, too!  Every learner is different, which means every teacher is different.  What remains is moving constantly and relentlessly towards a theory of instruction - listing the qualities of effectiveness and a framework for quality as we seek to transmit the fabric of a culture forward.

The Educator with a Time Machine

Jerome Bruner must have had a time machine when he wrote The Process of Education in 1960, because nearly everything he predicts and advocates for has come true in the last 55 years.  It must be amazing to look back over your entire career and say "I was right!"  Bruner, who will be 100 years old on October 1, is a professor of psychology who taught at schools such as Harvard and Oxford.

Bruner was part of a 35-member conference in 1959 at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, at a time when the United States felt the need to revolutionize its teaching of science and math to compete with the Soviet Union.  After the conference, Bruner wrote The Process of Education.

Reading The Process of Education is like getting in a time machine and going to a spot in educational history when people didn't spend much time thinking about curriculum or instruction. There were no standardized tests.  And no brain research to understand how and why we learn.  From this vantage point, Bruner writes of the purpose of education, makes predictions, asks questions, and points out areas requiring research.

Here are just a few of the things that have come true because of Bruner in the last 55 years:
• Spiral curriculum - Bruner believed that any subject could be taught in an intellectually honest way to a chid at any stage of development.  Solving for x in math or composing in music in first grade?  It's spiral curriculum - revisiting a topic over and over, each time in a deeper way.
• Standards-based grading/Personalization - "Ideally, schools should allow students to go ahead in different subjects as rapidly as they can ... The answer will probably lie in some modification or abolition of the system of grade levels in some subjects" (11).
• Predictive thinking - As a professor, Bruner knew the importance of predictions, hypotheses, and intuition in advancing knowledge.  Every elementary literacy lesson includes prediction today.
• Heuristic process - a "nonrigorous method of achieving solutions of problems" (63).  This is opposed to an algorithm, which is a step-by-step method.  Guess what model reform math curriculums use today?  Heuristic, open-ended problem solving and "math talk".
• Motivation in learning - Today, we talk all the time about what teachers do to engage students.  An entire publishing business has sprung up around student engagement, and teachers are rightly evaluated on the level of student engagement they create.  Bruner again.
• Differentiation - Bruner called aiming at the average student "inadequate" (70) and that materials must challenge superior students while not destroying the confidence of others.  Bruner thought differentiation was the key to student motivation.
• Scaffolding - Bruner coined the term
• Increases in federal funding and investment in education - another correct prediction
• The devaluation of subjects not rewarded by the National Merit Scholarship - before standardized testing, Bruner predicted that subjects outside of science and math would suffer in the years ahead because students would strive for scholarships.  Bruner desperately warned society not to let literature, history, and the arts suffer devaluation in schools.
• The role of technology - In a time of changing technology, Bruner said "the teacher constitutes the principal aid in the teaching process" (88) - not technological aids.  Said quality curriculum cannot be dodged by purchasing the latest tech device (which to him was 16-mm film)
• Educational Risk-taking - Bruner says "To be so insecure that he dares not be caught in a mistake does not make a teacher a likely model of daring.  If the teacher will not risk a shaky hypothesis, why should the student?" (90)

Find The Process of Education and read it - it's only 92 pages.  It's in your library, probably not checked out for decades.  For anyone trying to get back to the core of education, Bruner's book reminds you of a landscape when curriculum and instruction were idealistic new concepts before plagues of regulation and testing muddied the environment.

Bruner, Jerome. (1960). The Process of Education. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Your Classroom is NOT a Makerspace

"Industrial processes commonly overlook the value of raw materials that are not relevant to what is being made.  The same is true in education."  (Robinson, 2015, p. 37)

What are we trying to "make" in education?

The answer is simple - we're not trying to make anything.

Factories make something when machinists do something with raw materials.
Artists create by using raw materials to make something original.
In these cases, the raw materials don't change on their own.
These people makes something out of the raw materials in order to resell them for a profit.

Not so in education.
The students "make" themselves.
The raw material must change itself into a finished product (though, I doubt, we ever become finished products).  Students use their own raw materials (talents, skills, strengths, questions, wonders, character, values) to become a more finished version of their former self, as Ken Robinson might say. The teacher's role changes drastically in this view - one who holds up a mirror, offering feedback to the student as he/she "makes" him/herself.

What we have here is a classic "goods" vs. "services" debate for education.
And this, I propose, is why we find education in its current political predicament.

If education is meant to make something, what do you focus on?
You focus on outcomes and how you measure those outcomes - like a factory.
In education, that would be standards and assessment.
The focus on standards and assessment in recent years is an attempt to "make" students into something - people who can be put to work.  Look at the debate over Common Core and standardized assessments.  This was not the original intent of curriculum design.

But if education is meant to make people a better version of themselves, what do you focus on?
You focus on the process and the feedback that is provided to students.
That's instruction.
Quality instruction is a service, not a good.
Referring to the quote at the top of this post, standards and assessment "overlook the value of the raw materials" that students bring to your classroom.  Only quality instruction can take into account the skills, talents, and curiosities of students and use them in the service of learning.

This means that our triangle of Curriculum ~ Instruction ~ Assessment must be reimagined.
Yes, we must have a clear - very clear - vision of what students need to accomplish.  (See Grant Wiggins great article on how thorough planning helps, rather than hinders, creativity.)
And we need a way to provide ourselves and our students feedback on that journey through assessment that the student can use.

But at some point, we must admit that quality instruction needs to prevail over the other two, lest students become cogs in the machine. A colleague of mine rightly refers to the idea that when we pull on one side of the triangle too much, the others get out of whack. Society has pulled at the curriculum and assessment sides too much in the past few years without regard to the side that has the greatest effect on student achievement - instruction.

So in that sense, your classroom is not a makerspace.
Experimentation with reflection for improved achievement?  Yes.
Clear goals accomplished through creative means?  Yes.
But a place where you "make" a student into something?  No.

Your classroom is a "Becomer Space" - a place where students become better versions of themselves. A place where talents and wonders take root and blossom.

But now my question is this:
Who is arguing about quality instruction?
Even in places enacting new accountability and educator effectiveness measures, are they debated amongst the public?  Not likely, and then only if it is tied to assessment and compensation.
What about in your school or district?
How many committees are dedicated to quality instruction vs. curriculum and assessment?
The longer we ignore instruction at a system-wide level, the longer we ignore the "raw materials" present in all of our classrooms.

Despite government's best efforts at "accountability", the people moving the needle on instruction are teachers themselves.  That's why EdCamps, Twitter chats, ADE/GCT certifications, Teachers Pay Teachers, and teacher Pinterest sites are so popular.  Teachers love to talk pedagogy.  Teachers are creating "Becomer spaces" for their own improvement and for that of their students.

"Creative Schools" by Sir Ken Robinson

Look around ...
Everywhere you find increased mandates and regulation in education, you will find teachers with grit, determination, and resilience to make an impact.  When politicians talk about "local control" in education, it is indeed local - classroom by classroom, school by school, each doing what can be done to move the needle on achievement.  Not because someone said to, but because it's the right thing to do.

That is the idea behind Sir Ken Robinson's latest book, Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That's Transforming Education.  The subtitle says it all.  "Grassroots" means bottom-up transformation, and that means teachers, parents, students, administrators, and school boards. People making a difference by using the pieces that nobody is regulating.  Now that's local control.

I found Creative Schools to be incredibly affirming.  If you are an educator who believes in personalization of learning, 21st century skills and tools, and the critical role of the teacher like I do, you may not find much "new" in this book, but you will be strengthened in your journey and find plenty to chew on.

Robinson's book is incredibly timely.  Creative Schools looks at nations and states that were early to get on the standards bandwagon to see what they do when the wheels fall off that vehicle.  As the greater United States starts to emerge from the standards movement and ask "What's next?", the answer is not more standards or higher standards.   The answer is a re-imagining of the purposes and processes of education.  Read it now or the revolution might pass you by.

Top Quotes from "Creative Schools"

I just finished Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That's Transforming Education (link here).  I tweeted out the quotes that were most impactful to me along the way, and here they are all in one place.  A full blog post on the book is forthcoming.

So excited to read this book this weekend pic.twitter.com/MJUk2LxnnO

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) May 23, 2015

Industrial processes commonly overlook the value of raw materials that are not relevant to what is being made.The same is true in education.

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) May 24, 2015

(Robinson, 2015, p. 37) What “raw talent” do we overlook b/c it isn’t what we are trying to “make”?

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) May 24, 2015

And exactly what ARE we trying to make?

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) May 24, 2015

When mathematics was added to curricula in 1700s, it was met with resistance by traditionalists believing only in “classical” education

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) May 30, 2015

Sound familiar?

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) May 30, 2015

Students drop out of school when schools drop out of the real world. (Paraphrased from Mojkowski)

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) May 30, 2015

2013 U.S. Domestic movie gross: $11 billion. NFL is a $9B business. Educational testing & support is $16.5 billion (Robinson, 165)

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) May 30, 2015

“Standardized” is not the problem in education. The issue is what we choose to standardize (adapt Robinson, 176).

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) May 31, 2015

How do schools “banish the culture of anonymity that allows so many students to slip through virtually unnoticed”? (Robinson, 201)

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) June 2, 2015

“The role of a creative leader is not to have all the ideas; it is to encourage a culture where everyone has them” (Robinson, 205)

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) June 2, 2015

“Our children are always sending us signals about who they are becoming” (Robinson, 208). Are schools listening?

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) June 2, 2015

Find this book. Read it now. Start a revolution. http://t.co/RzVX7td4Ca

— Chris Sepersky (@sepersky) June 7, 2015

In Tribute to Grant Wiggins

I was shocked to see this tweet this morning.

Grant Wiggins, of brilliant mind and dearest heart, died yesterday. The world has lost a true champion of learning. @grantwiggins

— Alexis Wiggins (@alexiswiggins) May 27, 2015

It stopped me in my tracks, and it made me remember a time that one of his blog posts stopped me in my tracks on a March morning in 2012.  I am copying & pasting this post I wrote on my former blog. I would change a few words today from what I wrote 3 years ago, but for today, let us pause in tribute to a genius who could articulate the real reasons for education so beautifully.  Thank you, Grant Wiggins.
--------
March 24, 2012 - originally posted on TambourinesAndTechnology

I give myself 30 minutes every weekday morning for newspaper headlines and computer time.  About a week ago, an article by Grant Wiggins, the guru of educational curriculum, stopped me in my tracks.  When the leading voice in American education curriculum writes an article entitled "Everything you know about curriculum may be wrong," you know you better buckle up.

For those of us in music, the arts, physical education, tech ed, and the many other subjects that apply the core curriculum, we struggle whenever a new curriculum initiative is introduced.  For too long, the question we have asked ourselves has been, "How do we fit music/PE/art/etc. into this model?" when the question always should have been "How do our performances exemplify all that is right about curriculum?"  In reference to athletics, Wiggins says, "the game is the curriculum; the game is the teacher ... Knowledge about the game is secondary."  

The article opens with some transformational events in history - Copernicus's idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun and Einstein's idea that the speed of light, not time, is the constant.  Likewise revolutionary, Wiggins proposes "action, not knowledge, as the essence of an education".  Knowledge, Understanding, Transfer ... all serve a greater master - to move a student and humanity to action.  

The etymology of the word "curriculum" means a running course, like a race track for a chariot race.  We want students to be well-rounded and well-founded so they can run the course of life (curriculum vitae) successfully.  But this is scary for us as educators - we do not know what kind of action a student may take or what kind of action may be needed in the future.  Did anyone know what kind of action Michelangelo, Beethoven, or Einstein would take?  It is hard enough to equip students with knowledge to take them into the future - how do we prepare them for action?  By bringing the future into our classrooms now - by taking action now - by teaching them to act now on the knowledge they construct.

We live in a second renaissance.  Instead of a printing press, we have the internet.  How will we use knowledge of the past to spur students into future action?  For those of us who are music educators, we teach students to take action through music, since every piece of music is a problem to be solved and every performance is an action to be taken.  Taking action and performing is about creating something new - something never heard or seen before.  Performance is the curriculum; performance is the teacher.

Mind the Gap

Why does feedback work?

Ask a musician, a woodworker, an artist, a welder - anyone who produces something - and they can tell you.  These people were raised on feedback.  Every time you create something, you are inviting feedback.  But why does feedback work?

Because feedback calls attention to a gap. Feedback draws attention to something that is a distance ahead or a distance behind what we usually expect.  Feedback directs attention to close the gap; to motivate. Feedback calls attention to where you could go next, towards your process, towards your (mis)understandings (Hattie, adapted from p. 115).  Once you see a gap, it's almost impossible to ignore.

I'm sure you've seen this image before of "Information" versus "Knowledge".
But this time, don't look at the dots.  Look at the gaps between the dots.

I suggest that the gaps between "Information" and "Knowledge" is feedback.

Feedback is what fills in the gaps - makes the connections - and creates knowledge.  If a teacher or coach does not provide feedback, a student will fill in the gaps with his/her own feedback, and that is when students can create misunderstandings.

Why do we encourage students to create "connections" and "self-talk" in early school years?  Because these are early forms of feedback.  Thinking about thinking.  Being self-critical and connecting the gaps from an early age.

Teachers need to be creators of feedback opportunities.  And more importantly, students need to become creators of feedback opportunities so they continue to learn and grow.

In the last 30 minutes - Choice Boards

In a previous post, I mentioned I am using a choice board with a 5th grade project.
In the last 30 minutes I did the following:

• conferenced with 2 students after they each read a book about a composer,
• coached 5 students composing original songs on Noteflight,
• coached 2 students who preferred to compose with real instruments rather than Noteflight,
• worked with students creating Google Slide presentations about a composer,
• had separate conversations with students about Gregorian chant, the ballets of Tchaikovsky, Duke Ellington's music, and why Mozart died so young,
• worked with a student who wanted to understand my anthology of Brahms lieder (songs) so he could play it on his piano,
• had student after student come to me proudly displaying something they had created to show their learning,
• and that's just the things I can recall right now.

Set up opportunities for student voice and choice to demonstrate learning in all sorts of ways, and then step back and enjoy.  This 30-second clip is actually from a few days ago, but it gives the idea.

Feedback isn't a Strategy

At a recent presentation at WEMTA, I spoke on using technology to increase feedback.  As I was preparing the presentation, I spent some time looking at the Hattie study - actually a metastudy of 138 educational strategies and influences ranked by effect size.  For the purposes of the study, Hattie classifies "feedback" as one of the top strategies, but very few of the top strategies would be possible without extensive feedback from a teacher.

Feedback cannot be a just another strategy in a classroom.
Feedback is the "oil" in the engine of learning.

Oil makes everything happen better - smoother - more efficiently - faster.
Oil makes the engine last longer and go farther.
Oil allows power to be transferred from one place to another.

Feedback is the oil that makes learning happen.  It makes learning happen deeper, more efficiently, and allows that transfer to happen.  Teachers and leaders need to focus on increasing feedback in meaningful ways.  In the landscape of standards based learning and formative assessment, feedback is more important than ever.  And with all our assessment, it should be easier than ever.

Here are four few feedback rules I have learned:
• Feedback that isn't used isn't feedback - it's just noise.
    (Feedback should never be the last thing a students sees or hears from a teacher.)
• Feedback on a task that wasn't a challenge to begin with isn't feedback.
    (Think about your above level students and every task you assign!)
• When a teacher gives feedback, it needs to be practiced immediately by the student.
    (Music teachers know that if you say it, you need to immediately rehearse it.)
• Use the "masterclass model" of teaching to provide feedback if you are short on time.   
     (Give quality feedback to one person while everyone else watches and learns.  Yes, this
     takes a trusting classroom community, but it is very effective.)

Effective feedback occurs during the learning, while there is still time to act on it... #edchat pic.twitter.com/qVmvGgRbEB

— Dr. Justin Tarte (@justintarte) March 10, 2015

What inspired leaders at both Apple AND Google?

What inspired leaders at both Apple and Google to make their companies what they are today?
The existence of these two companies might not have happened if not for one thing that influenced their early leadership.  And what was that common thread of inspiration?  Music.

Without the impact music made on the thinking of the early leaders of these two companies, we might all have to imagine some alternate reality where Google and Apple don't exist [insert shudder]. And these leaders are not alone.

Many leaders connect their musical training to professional success.  The article "Is Music the Key to Success?" lists Condoleezza Rice, Alan Greenspan, Paul Allen, Steven Spielberg, and several more leaders who didn't just rehearse music - they rehearsed leadership.  Add to that list Albert Einstein and Nobel laureate Thomas Sudhof, who says his most influential teacher was his bassoon teacher.

But what about Google and Apple, specifically?

Larry Page, the CEO of Google, said "I feel like music training lead to the high-speed legacy of Google for me."  Page wanted computers and programs to operate in real time, responding the way music works when you play it live.  This need for speed was a major design factor when Page co-founded Google and a search engine that changed the world (click here for article).

Jef Raskin, one of the early employees at Apple, was a musician and wanted to be able to write music on a computer screen.  His work developed software that could type and print music fonts.  When he invented the Macintosh computer for Apple, Raskin made sure it could play sounds and produce various fonts.  Nobody before Raskin saw a need for users to be able to change fonts.  The graphic user interfaces we have today are thanks to Raskin's music training.

STEM in schools?
Thank a musician.

No tech? No problem!

Raise your hand if this happened to you (or in your school) this Spring:
Because of testing, we can't do the unit I planned to do.

Over the past several years, I have developed some pretty tech-heavy units in Springtime that would fall at the "modification" or "redefinition" levels of the SAMR model.  My 5th grade students researched composers, created websites, and interacted on Edmodo.  My 3rd & 4th grade students learned to play recorders while composing on Noteflight.  They composed for each other and learned twice the content.

But this year, we had Badger testing followed immediately by MAP testing in my district.  And although the possibility of devices existed during those 4-6 weeks, I couldn't build a unit around inconsistent schedules.  What to do?

I had recently heard Kasey Bell (shakeuplearning.com) speak at WEMTA about choice boards. So my music colleagues and I set off to redesign an entire 5th grade composer unit with minimum tech, maximum connections, and student voice & choice. Here is our choice board, with an explanation below.

Composer Project Choice Board

 
Take-away for leaders?  We talk about teachers redefining instruction in the presence of technology.  We talk about deliberate, purposeful integration.  But what is the real test of a teacher's changed mindset?  When you take technology away from those same teachers, they may not like it, but they will not go back to the "old" way of teaching the same content.  Once that line has been crossed - once a teacher has chosen to increase engagement, innovation, feedback, and relationships - there is no going back.  They will redesign rather than regress.  It is truly about quality instruction - not the tool.

I would never seriously suggest this, because it would hurt students in the end, but it would be interesting to have a research study that looks at a good 1:1 environment and analyzes what happens when the tech is taken away, or at least returned to intermittent availability.  I will admit that any time I could grab devices in the last few weeks, I did.  But, because of the choice board, it became the student's choice to use the device - not mine.

Choice board explanation:
The core of the project is research skills; thus students needed to do the four boxes on top before moving to the choice board itself.  This got students through the rough draft phase of the project. Once students got to the 4x4 choice board, they needed to pick four choices to make a "bingo".  The rows and columns have been balanced to ensure even variety and effort.  Resist the urge to allow students to pick four random choices - choosing a "bingo" keeps them focused on a goal.  They will gravitate to a favorite and then work outwards from that square.  Each square takes 1-2 music classes. I can tell you that students have been very excited and motivated to work on these projects - at least as motivated as they were in the presence of 1:1 technology.

Turn Up the Feedback

In March 2015, I presented at the Wisconsin Educational Media & Technology Association's State Conference (WEMTA).  One of my favorite topics this year is increasing feedback in the classroom. Feedback is well-documented as one of the most effective strategies to increase achievement.  So, if feedback is so effective, what can we do to "turn up the feedback"?  Below is my presentation.  I will write more about feedback (and why I think it is not just a "strategy") in a separate blog post.

Beginning the Song

Welcome!  I previously wrote the blog Tambourines and Technology because I am a music teacher that loves using technology to improve instruction and achievement.  But, since January 2014, I have been studying Educational Leadership at Alverno College.  At the end of the program, I will be eligible for licensure as either a principal or director of instruction in Wisconsin.

Tambourines and Technology reflects my love for music and edtech.  But for the last year, my thoughts have been on instruction and leadership, although often still with an edtech focus. Therefore, I decided it was time to re-brand and start this new blog for myself and anyone who wants to come along for the ride.

"Lead, Serve, Sing" reflects my core beliefs.  It incorporates instructional leadership, servant leadership, and my love of music as an analogy to use your voice to help others find theirs.

The quote that has hung in my classroom for nearly my entire career is this:
"A bird does not sing because it has an answer; it sings because it has a song."

This quote, by Joan Walsh Anglund (but misattributed to Maya Angelou) has impacted me in various ways over the years, but I believe that people (students and teachers) live their fullest when they find their own song and sing it proudly.

Like birds in the morning, our song inspires others to sing their songs as well.
Birds do not all sing the same song in unison.
It is impossible to have too many songs at one time in nature.
Let us look for the same in our schools.