The Indispensable Tool for Teaching Writing: Google Docs

 The Indispensable Tool for Teaching Writing: Google Docs

English language arts teachers may be the hardest working teachers in America’s secondary schools. This is a bold and generalized statement, but it reflects the countless hours that writing teachers spend from their personal and family time on evenings and weekends checking stacks of lengthy term papers in addition to reading ahead in the literature, preparing for upcoming lessons, and coaching speech or sports and directing the school play.Nonetheless, I am  tempted to return to a classroom now that new technology tools are making writing instruction so much more powerful and productive. My favorite is Google Documents. Every content area teacher needs the high-tech devices to be able to utilize Google Docs in class, not only English and Language Arts teachers.

Writing is a process; however, teachers historically treat it as a product. We assign a writing topic at the beginning of the week. Sometimes we may ask students to submit outlines or note cards along the way. We may discuss in class how the compositions are progressing. But then the final products are submitted on Friday for summary judgment by the teacher. And the teacher judges the product of each student’s labor.

Google Docs allows instructors to teach writing as a process. A teacher can set up a Google document for each student in his or her class. Then the teacher has access to the document. The teacher can review it periodically and coach the student through the writing process.

A teacher could follow along and check students as they work through daily writing process assignments like the ones below.

• Monday:          Students will brainstorm possible topics and create word webs.
• Tuesday:          Students will write thesis statements and rough outlines.
• Wednesday:     Students will revise their rough outlines into sentence outlines.
• Thursday:         Students will re-write their sentence outlines into paragraphs.
• Friday:             Students will add concluding paragraphs and polish final drafts of their essays.

Instead of disposing of each step in the process or handing in each to the teacher as a separate assignment, the steps could all remain in the single composition with new material added at the beginning of the doc each day.

By providing time in class daily to work on the writing process, the teacher can review the writing assignments in class, offer suggestions on word usage and syntax, and coach the students on their writing.

Moreover, if the writing assignments are monitored along the way, students will be less able to cheat. It will be harder for students to simply cut and paste an assignment belonging to someone else because teachers will be watching the writing progress. Also, students will be more likely to be on track by the end of the week. It will be hard to claim the dog ate the homework when the teacher knows what was done prior to the due date.

Finally, and AGAIN this is not just for English teachers. Reading and writing instruction is the responsibility of every teacher in the school system. I have heard too many teachers say something like, “I am a history teacher. I am only interested in how the students describe history in their papers. It is not my job to correct spelling, grammar, or word usage.” This is a flaw in our system that we have compartmentalized subject areas. It is the job of every teacher to tie all the curricular areas together.

I encourage all teachers to use these tech tools. They have the potential for turning around our criticized educational institutions. Now let us get the technology devices into the hands of our teachers so they can use these tools to teach students.

The Broadband Imperative: Recommendations to Address K-­‐12 Education Infrastructure Needs…Broadband NOW!!!!

May 21, 2012 (Washington, D.C.) Today the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) released The Broadband Imperative: Recommendations to Address K-­‐12 Education Infrastructure Needs. This report examines current trends driving the need for more broadband in teaching, learning and school operations; provides state and district examples of the impact of robust deployment of broadband; and offers specific recommendations for the broadband capacity needed to ensure all students have access to the tools and resources they need to be college and career ready. “This information and guidance regarding broadband will assist states in understanding this critical cornerstone for providing equitable access to digital resources, professional development, and a personalized learning landscape,” said Jorea Marple, West Virginia Superintendent of Schools.

Given existing trends and the experiences of leading states and districts, SETDA recommends that schools will need external Internet connections to their Internet service provider of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students and staff by 2014-­‐15 and of 1 Gbps per 1,000 students and staff by 2017-­‐18. Larry Shumway, Utah State Superintendent of Public Instruction, adds: “Utah supports the use of broadband technology in all of its classrooms. Broadband infrastructure is a vital tools for schools today and will help prepare students for college and careers in the future.”

“Addressing teacher and student concerns regarding educational broadband reliability and speed is as critical as ensuring plumbing and electricity in schools. This report highlights the need for the federal government, states, districts and schools to invest not only in school broadband infrastructure but also more broadly to ensure students can access learning resources both in and out of school,” stated Douglas Levin, Executive Director of SETDA. “Limited access to broadband must not become the stumbling block to helping all

BOSE Releases New report: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Education

Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13362) describes insights that could improve undergraduate education in science and engineering. The report defines discipline-based education research (DBER) as a field of study that is emerging from parent disciplines such as physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, the geosciences, and astronomy. DBER investigates teaching and learning in a discipline, using a range of methods with grounding in the discipline’s priorities, worldview, knowledge, and practices. Notable findings include that student-centered learning strategies can enhance learning more than traditional lectures, students have incorrect understandings about fundamental concepts, particularly phenomena that are not directly obser!
vable, and students are challenged by important aspects of a particular domain that can seem easy or obvious to experts in that domain.  The report recommends that institutions, disciplinary societies, and professional societies support faculty efforts to use evidence-based teaching strategies in their classrooms; that they work together to prepare future faculty who understand research findings on learning and teaching and who value effective teaching as part of their career aspirations; and that they support venues for DBER scholars to share their research findings at meetings and in high-quality journals. Like most NRC reports, it also lays out future research directions including exploring similarities and differences in learning among various student populations; longitudinal studies that can shed light on how students acquire and retain understanding (or misunderstanding) of concepts; studies that investigate student outcomes other than test scores; and studies of organizational and behavior change that could aid the translation of DBER findings into practice

“4” Social Media Listening Strategies for 21st Century School Leaders

4 Social Media Listening Strategies for 21st Century School Leaders

Summer Reading List….

Presentation at American Education Research Association

This was an honor and privilege to present a paper about the “Walmartization of Charter Schools” which focused on the accountability issues with “big box” companies and public education.

New Scoop-it about “online and blended learning”

Superintendent has the RIGHT IDEA!!!

Photo credit: Illustration by Christopher Serra |

McGill: Rating won’t help teachers or kids

The State Education Department has mandated a new evaluation scheme for New York‘s teachers. In what Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo describes as a “groundbreaking” move, everyone now will be rated on a 100-point scale that relies heavily on classroom observations and students’ test scores.

What could be wrong with that?

Pretend you want to evaluate 150 people in your organization. You have three objectives. Assure a high level of effectiveness. Constantly improve everyone’s performance. Screen out anyone whose efforts aren’t acceptable.

You want to base your evaluation plan on several principles. You know that performance improves when people collaborate and when they get good coaching. Good coaches take information from multiple sources and use it to give considered feedback. Their charges get ample opportunity to practice under supervision. Evaluators also need standards and strong evidence to hold employees accountable.

Most of the people in your organization want to succeed. A few are truly exceptional. A larger number have mixed strengths and weaknesses. A smaller group is less competent. Everyone works independently much of the time. You don’t have the resources — enough supervisors or time, for example — to give everyone the continuous, thorough feedback needed to change complex behavior intentionally. So you focus your energies.

Some of your people are relatively new. They need more support and mentoring. You get several supervisors to collaborate in observing these newcomers and in working to bring them along. You’re less interested in comparing them than in whether each is becoming fully proficient — and then getting even better .

Some people are more expert. You check in on them less often to be sure they’re meeting core standards, cooperatively plan for their development, and offer them opportunities to hone their skills and absorb emerging knowledge about their field. Again, you’re less interested in how they might rank and more in their staying vibrant and continuing to grow.

You know from your periodic checks and from informal feedback that some folks aren’t measuring up. Supervisors either collaborate to help them upgrade their performance or develop extensive evidence for their dismissal.

That’s effective evaluation in a rational world. Not in the world of Albany. Albany wants to rank people relative to one another.

But why?

If the point is to help them improve, they need insightful advice and good coaching, not numerical rankings. If it’s to screen out less competent teachers, the only relevant yardstick is whether performance is up to standard. Who cares whether Ms. Jones is number 34, 35 or 36 out of 150?

The state’s rationale is that the metrics will drive people to compete for better scores. But what’s the point when the numbers lack meaning? Everyone knows that standardized tests aren’t good measures of who’s a good teacher, for example. Few, if any, researchers believe they can be used to make fine distinctions among practitioners, as the state plan tries to do.

Regardless, quantification is the name of today’s game. Student test results or classroom observations determine at least 71 points of a teacher’s score. The local schools control the remaining 29 points, but they have to be divided up in some set way: so many for planning, so many for taking part in professional activities, and so on.

This numbers game already drives teachers to spend increasing time prepping their kids for exams at the expense of other learning, and to play the system so they can amass points strategically. It’ll discourage collaboration, as well. As one veteran recently said, “Why should I do anything that could help someone else get a higher score than I do?”

Meanwhile, no rigid scoring formula will anticipate all possible situations. Let’s say Ms. Smith’s special needs kids are constantly the brunt of her dark sarcasms when nobody’s watching. That’s unacceptable. Whatever her strengths, credible student and parent feedback should lead supervisors to judge her performance inadequate. In Albany‘s 100-point world, however, she may well pile up enough points to be “proficient.” All she has to do is deliver a coherent lesson in front of an observer, produce decent test scores and strategically get a few more points here and there.

In short, the supposed strengths of this one-size-fits-all approach are really weaknesses. The “objective” numbers don’t judge people accurately. One state-wide evaluation framework doesn’t make sense for every school, and this one restricts the human judgment that’s essential to effective evaluation.

This is teacher appreciation week. In place of well-meaning sentiment, New York State should appreciate its teachers meaningfully. Rather than impose its uniform evaluation template on everyone, it should enable districts to develop their own plans and their capacity to evaluate effectively. A real service to teachers would be to help them understand whether teaching is the right career for them and, if it is, how to do an even better job of developing the determination, initiative, and thinking skills standardized tests can’t measure.

Michael McGill, superintendent of the Scarsdale Public Schools, is participating in a panel about the misperceptions and realities of the state’s teacher evaluation system on Saturday, May 12, at Bank Street College in Manhattan.

Want a FREE subscription to eSchool News?

Click the link and get a Free eSchool News subscription…this is not a scam.

Check it out!

The difference between Learning and Instruction

One thing I am proud of is that I am an avid reader as I was reading an article tonight I thought I should write a post about it and share my opinions. The article appeared in American Educator which, essentially, argues that educators who believe in the value of experiential, problem-based learning, are misguided fools, and I thought OK let’s see where this misguided fool has gone wrong. The article titled: ‘Putting Students on the Path to Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction’, written by Clark, Kirschner and  Sweller seeks to basically put an end to any debate  around which mode of learning is best: partially-guided instruction (as seen in discovery learning, problem-based learning, or inquiry learning) or direct instruction. Where does this fit into the blended/hybrid world?

It’s a long article, so I’d urge you to read it for yourself, but not at night unless you have insomnia. But the basic premise of it is something like this: advocates of constructivist approaches to learning are wilfully ignoring decades of rigorous research who proves, beyond doubt, that for novice learners, (defined by the authors as almost all of us) fully-guided instruction is the way to learn. I spoke recently to a colleague who is undertaking her PhD at USC and this was one of her issues that the research they are using to frame arguments is from the 70’s and 80’s!!

I don’t know about you, but my hair on my neck rises when I see professors seeking to “put an end” to debate to make something the final word, it just wreaks of absolutism. I have issues with this as there is a detachment from schools or education and researchers many times to the reality of school today. Some of them might need to get out of their ivory towers and actually go to a school. If that’s the case then I have a few arguments to counteract their points.

There is, however, another aspect to this kind of academic arrogance that gets under my skin and raises my hair, or as I would have said a few years ago “pisses me off”.

Why do these arguments get presented in such a manner? Who said it was either/or? And, of course, minimal guidance during ‘instruction’ is pretty pointless – it barely counts as guidance.

This article points to an even bigger question, for me, though. What do we mean by ‘learning’? The authors imply that learning is simply about reaching into the long-term memory data banks to find previous ‘worked examples’ which will provide a solution to presented problems. They cite chess masters as prime examples of this, are you kidding me “chess masters'” where is their creativity or innovation? They state that by being able to beat several opponents at once by retrieving data on previous moves from their memory banks is the base for the research model. I don’t know much about chess, but I do recal Bobby Fischer emphasising the importance of speculation and intuition.

In a future where a connected mind is likely to be at a premium, should we not be seeing ‘learning’ as more than just store-and-retrieve? Sure, their ideas might help you pass a standardized test (which is another post in itself), but will it help you put two ideas together to create a new one? And, if a student becomes engaged (and inquiry and problem-based approaches seem remarkably good at engaging students) aren’t they going to be more likely to apply some discretionary energy into learning more about concepts and theories, because doing so could explain why an experimental didn’t work fully? We do know that, if knowledge isn’t re-visited regularly, we lose it. This explains why most of us can’t remember much of what we rote-learned in our childhoods, no matter how guided the instruction. If we weren’t engaged at the time of the instruction, we aren’t likely to want to re-visit it.

Solving problems, recognising the part our emotions play when learning, following hunches, daydreaming might seem to Profs Clark, Kirtchner and Sweller as ‘inefficient’. I would love to have the opportunity to argue that they all help engage the learner and without engagement, there’s no deep, or lasting, learning. It is about passion based, passion driven learning with guidance from behind.

This is a true example of how this concept is in real life,  visit Caine’s Arcade, in the video below, and ask yourself if you think that he will have long-term memories of how he solved problems through experience, experimentation, emotion and intuition? BTW a week ago when I was first sent the video (thanks Ana) I watched it five times, just to watch the look on the boys face as he saw his dreams coming true as he built his “field of dreams”. Let me know what you think..

Link to Caine’s Arcade video…http://vimeo.com/40000072