Blogs Worth Reading: Thought Leaders

Here are some more blogs worth reading. These folks are curriculum people, teacher educators, and other thought leaders in the K-12 education space who are former K-12 teachers. Each is now out of the K-12 classroom, but focused on helping teachers teach and students learn.

Dan Meyer (@ddmeyer)
Blog: dy/dan
Subtitle: less helpful

Matt Townsley (@mctownsley)
Blog: MeTa Musings
Subtitle: ...where Math education, Technology and Assessment meet

Jason Buell (@jybuell)
Blog: Always Formative
Subtitle: Assessment is a conversation.

Dean Shareski (@shareski)
Blog: Ideas and Thoughts
Subtitle: Learning Stuff Since 1964

I could go on and on, but I figure I'd keep this list short (for now). Note that I post these links without commentary. You should check them out for yourself. If you know others I should add to my list of must-reads, please send them along.

Blogs Worth Reading: Math Teachers

I have found a group of math teachers who have made a really strong online community. Together, they are questioning, innovating, and making positive change happen and then sharing through blogs and tweets. It's incredibly inspiring.

Honestly, this is the best use of blogs and Twitter I have seen yet. My favorite thing about all of them is that they clearly have a growth mindset when it comes to their craft. They are growing as teachers in a collaborative, sharing way.

Anyone who is a new math or science teacher should read these blogs and follow these folks on Twitter.

That said, here is a list of some of my favorite math teacher bloggers/twitterers.

Kate Nowak (@k8nowak)
Blog: f(t)
Not only does Kate solicit ideas from the twitterverse; she actually puts the ideas into action and shares the results (regardless of how successful they were).

Sam Shah (@samjshah)
Blog: Continuous Everywhere but Differentiable Nowhere
Sam's post on the Blogotwitterversphere is great.

Fawn Nguyen (@fawnpnguyen)
Blog: Finding Ways
Great sharing, especially with the 3Acts.

Geoff Krall (@emergentmath)
Blog: emergent math
A nice mix of real-world application-driven stuff as well as insightful commentary.

Check these people out. I find them all to be informative and inspirational. I know there are others who are really good (my list of a few thought leaders who are not in the classroom will follow in a later post), but these are quite good. If you know of other great ones, please share.

Zoran Popovic: He's Got Games

This is the first in an occasional series on researchers I think are doing interesting work. Some will be well-known, but others might be somewhat less so. Regardless, I will share some thoughts on why more people should be putting this person's research into action. These aren't researchers who would only be interesting to someone working in an ivory tower. Each one does interesting work that you could use.

Dr. Zoran Popovic does a lot of work, but one thing he does really well is make games. As a matter of fact, he worked on algorithms that are used in the video game Destiny. He also cares quite a bit about how to help students. Notably, how to use hints to help students learn.

A Few of His Projects

Dr. Popovic runs the Center for Game Science at the University of Washington. CGS has done a bunch of good stuff including:

• FoldIt provides a context in which people with no knowledge of biochemistry can solve complex protein structure problems that help scientists solve real problems. It's actually pretty darn remarkable.
• Refraction is an interesting (and effective) way to learn fraction concepts and operations.
• DragonBox allows (even very young) students to learn algebra.

Popovic also runs a non-profit called EnLearn, which has built an adaptive learning platform. The EnLearn platform is not designed to replace teachers. It's designed to help them be more effective.

My Favorite Popovic Idea

So much to choose from, but I'm going geeky. I really like his Trace-based Framework for Analyzing and Synthesizing Educational Progressions. This reminds me of the Knowledge Spaces idea that lies behind ALEKS. It's computational and theoretical, but when you see it described well, it makes total sense. To a great extent, these traces are a big part of why EnLearn is so powerful.

Many people are making educational games and some people have built adaptive learning platforms, but very few people are doing either as well as Dr. Popovic and his teams.

Math Illiteracy

On his Uncertain Principles blog, Chad Orzel provides an interesting look at the problem of our culture's math illiteracy in The Innumeracy of Intellectuals. Professor Orzel's essential point is that people are generally ashamed of a lack of knowledge about art or culture, but can have a sense of pride about their lack of mathematical knowledge.

I don't think that everyone needs to love math any more than everyone needs to be an artist or a musician. On the other hand, here are three reasons I think everyone should master some key mathematical skills and concepts:

1. Math matters: We are constantly bombarded by information and much of it requires some analysis. Sometimes, we need a solid grasp of logic, and at other times, we need to understand statistics or probability. Math helps us make sense of many situations.
2. Math is helpful: The more math you know, the more ways you can see that it can be helpful as a way to solve real-world problems.
3. Math is beautiful.

Point 1's implications: I think everyone needs some knowledge of algebra, probability, and statistics. That's it. No calculus. No trigonometry. Nothing too fancy. If you can't make sense of the data and statistics that are part of modern life, then you can't make good medical, financial, or political decisions.

Points 2's implications: Teachers need to find ways to get students using math that matters and doing math that is just better. Dan Meyer has a post Real Work v. Real World. Doing crappy work in a real-world context is probably worse than doing interesting work in a made-up context. Math students need to do more good work.

Point 3's implication: It just is. If you haven't seen beauty in math, then you are hanging out with the wrong math teachers (everyone hangs out with a bunch of math teachers, right?).

Anyway, math matters, it's helpful, and it's beautiful. We need to use these truths to draw more people in and keep them engaged with learning math.

Driven by Data: Paul Bambrick-Santoyo's Model

In his books Driven by Data and Leverage Leadership, Paul Bambrick-Santoyo describes a model for facilitating effective teaching and using a focus on data-driven instruction to build effective schools.

Bambrick-Santoyo has a remarkable track record of turning around poor schools. His strategies don't require any fancy technology (though I think technology could help), but they do require that teachers and administrators break from some old ways of thinking.

At its core, Data-Driven Instruction (DDI) relies on believing that assessments are worthy goals. Many educators who hate these tests spit out the phrase "teaching to the test" as if it were an epithet. The negative attitude towards standardized tests is understandable. For many schools, end-of-year assessments are painful autopsies that expose their students' and teachers' deficiencies when measured by a meter stick that has little to do with what went on all year.

It doesn't have to be this way.

1) State standards for K-12 are getting better. I don't want to wade too far into the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) battles, but what I think many educators can agree on is that most states have created better standards over the past couple decades. Coherent curricula matter, and CCSS has made people pay attention to this. The standards are not a curriculum, but when standards are focused and well-organized, they can help schools develop coherent curricula.

2) More states are adopting end-of-year assessments that don't suck. This is critical. As states adopt higher-quality assessments to measure how students do against their better standards, teaching to the test isn't such a bad thing. Teaching to the sort of assessment I took in school (nothing but multiple choice questions with low cognitive demand) would be criminal. As assessments become much more sophisticated and include constructed response, technology-enhanced items, and even performance tasks, teaching to these new assessments shouldn't be so repugnant. According to a RAND study, these new assessments can lead to better instruction, but only if (among other things):

• they are part of an integrated assessment system that includes formative and summative components and
• the new assessments are a component of a broader systemic reform effort.

3) If the standards are better and the tests are better, then having teachers use benchmark tests (Bambrick-Santoyo calls them Interim Assessments) to see where their students are can be incredibly powerful. This isn't about having every school day be all about assessment. This is about mapping out a plan for how your students will get to the finish line and then checking at a few points along the way to see how you (the teacher) and the students are doing. This isn't about giving each student a number. It's about understanding what they do and don't know and what the teacher needs to do differently to help them make progress.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy either way: Teachers who fight the test will have students who struggle on the autopsy. Teachers and schools who find ways to improve the instructional processes with the assessments in mind have a better chance of reaping great rewards for their students.

Education and Business: A Tough Combo

Achival's Blog brings us Why Education Startups Don't Succeed. It's an interesting read, especially for anyone who has been involved in the online education business over the past decade or so. The entire piece is worthwhile, but I particularly like the list at the end. The first bullet is pretty sobering:

Don’t believe that building a better product will make you successful. Delivering something for cheaper will. Even if that cheaper thing is lower quality. This is usually repugnant to most well-educated entrepreneurs.

Ugh. Yeah, that is a bit repugnant. I want to believe that a better product will succeed, but I know that having a great product is neither necessary nor sufficient. I know this because I have seen some companies get paid for pretty poor products while companies with brilliant people and products languish. As long as a product is cheap and has the perception of filling a need (thanks to good marketing copy and/or a well-spoken champion), it has a chance to succeed.

Am I a little bitter when I see someone cash in on a crappy product? Yes, I am. I respect their chutzpah, but am disappointed in a system that can't identify, use, and reward quality.

TechCrunch says that Education Technology Startups Raised Over Half a Billion Dollars in Q1 of 2014. People are still trying to build better educational mousetraps. I respect the effort and hope the good ones succeed.

Over the last couple decades, I have worked for a handful of small companies trying to change education and/or training. Some have seen some success, while others faded away or imploded. I am quixotic enough to keep trying, but realistic enough to know that developing some amazing solution won't guarantee success.

The Wrath of Khan

With his tutorial videos, Khan Academy has made a big splash in the education world. Having Bill Gates sing your praises in a TED Talk is a sure way to get a lot of attention.

Over at Action-Reaction, Frank Noschese has an article Khan Academy: My Final Remarks. I agree with many of his points. Here is a quote from near the end of the post:

Khan Academy is just one tool in a teacher’s arsenal. (If it’s the only tool, that is a HUGE problem.) Khan Academy can be useful for some kids as a vehicle (build skills) to help them get to better places (solving complex problems).

Here are some other bloggers putting KA into some reasonable context:

• On his Quantum Progress blog, John Burk also chimed in with Project Euler vs Khan Academy: The Future of Online Learning.
• Mathalicious's blog has Socrates & C-3PO. 
• On his MAA blog Devlin's Angle, Professor Keith Devlin brings us The Difference Between Teaching and Instruction. 

It's comforting to see that I am not alone in thinking that if Khan is really the future of education, then we are in deep doodoo. Frankly, I would not really call Khan Academy’s stuff “education,” but rather would consider it “instruction.” If we turn education into nothing but a series of activities that a microchip can perform, then we are on a very dangerous path.

I don't mean to be a Khan basher. When using KA as a way to support struggling students, or as a way to help flip a classroom and allow teachers to focus on engaging with students, it can have great value. The Daily Riff has The Flipped Class Manifest, which provides some insights into how and when flipping a classroom can work, as well as a nice set of links to articles that provide more depth.

Back in 2007 (before I ever heard of Khan Academy), I started developing instructional videos that are somewhat similar to Khan’s work. I think they are great tools, but they are not the be-all and end-all of online education. We need to continue to innovate, but shouldn't get too carried away by the latest educational fad and think it will solve all our problems.

The Changing Nature of Being Educated

I've been reading "The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood" by James Gleick, and in it, he has a quote that I had to dig a little deeper on. Here is a slightly longer version of something Gleick quoted:

For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in [this technology] will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom,....

So, who was this Luddite railing against technology? Though this could easily be my mother or father, it was actually Socrates in Plato's Phaedrus. He was warning of the perils of written language, just as others would eventually complain about the printing press and then radio, film, TV, and every other transformative information technology.

In this day and age, what does it mean to be educated, and how has that definition changed over time? In Plato's time, you could be considered educated even if you were illiterate. In the 1970's you needed to know how to read, but could still be considered well-educated if you had no clue about how to use a computer. What about now? More importantly, what about 10, 20, or 30 years from now?

Note: I am not trying to wade out into the depths of the battles about whether technology is making kids worse students. New York Times has Technology Changing How Students Learn, Teachers Say, which does wade out into those scary waters. I just think the changing nature of what it means to be educated is an interesting thing to keep an eye on.