I learned a new word this week: sciolism. It’s my new favorite word. Learning about it slapped me in the forehead with a V8 moment, reminding me not to settle for shallow busywork or entertaining (but brainless) activities in my lesson plans.
It reminds me to get to the point.
Don’t ramble. If there is an objective or goal in mind, point toward it, focus, and head that way. Meandering and wandering are leisure activities, meant for aimless relaxation.
And if you’re going to make a point, make it a point that probes deeply enough to make an impact. Eliminate the trivial riffraff and brush off the fluff. Let’s aim for the jugular.
Are you guilty of sciolism?
Many of us who integrate technology into our instruction have an especially difficult time staying focused on learning objectives and digging deeply enough for rigor, even if we don’t like to admit it. It’s the nature of our jobs. Since we work with entertaining, dynamic tools, it’s too easy to become playful and veer off the track, overlooking the learning objectives.
We often inadvertently mislead the students. We don’t mean to do it, but they end up thinking that the objective of the lesson is to master the application or tool. We fail to emphasize that their purpose is to learn a concept, explore a topic, or synthesize what they’ve learned. The tool is not the lesson.
Knowing how to produce a claymation movie is impressive, and its production certainly requires many technological skills, but the more critical question is whether that project effectively demonstrates academic achievement– for example, can a student demonstrate through the animated characters that he understands the theme or main ideas of the story he is retelling? Can a student read a series of stories by one author and create an original claymation story modeled after the author’s unique style and genre?
We don’t only mislead our students about the purpose of the projects; we might also mislead ourselves about the quality of the students’ work. Sometimes we’re so impressed with the students’ glitzy results on a project that we tend to grade them by the wow factor rather than by the actual evidence of mastery or learning.
Before you create a technology project, always ask yourself, “What’s the point?”
And before you grade a technology project, ask yourself, “What was the point?”
We should never forget the standards. They are the point!
In order to challenge students and bring rigor to lessons, teachers must continually tweak and refine their projects and infuse them with academic, curricular objectives — like it or not, these state-prescribed, content-area standards are the true “goals” of the lesson.
On the other hand, the activity should remain so engaging and well-designed that students learn the concepts almost surreptitiously and vicariously. In other words, although students are aware they’re learning, they shouldn’t really notice that you’re able to systematically check off a list of bulleted learning objectives along the way.
It takes dedicated effort to add academic rigor and challenge to projects that use technology. They’re just too doggone fun! Although projects and products are enjoyable, they should be purposeful and focused. Furthermore, they should be graded and assessed against a rigorous scale or criteria, using detailed rubrics, critical peer review, and/or authentic global exposure and feedback through the internet (as in student blogs, published films, or wikis).
If you have a point, your lessons will make a difference!
I recently attended a dynamic presentation by Dr. Tim Tyson, who spoke about transforming the way schools operate and maximizing potential. He asserted that although No Child Left Behind claims to raise the educational standard, it actually stresses minimum standards. Truly effective teachers and progressive schools do much more than expecting minimum achievement. They maximize their students’ abilities.
In reforming Mabry Middle School in Atlanta to the status of a model educational facility, one of the projects Tyson spearheaded encourages students to produce multimedia presentations that educate audiences about a topic of social concern. Students are taught that what they do makes a difference — not just in their grades, but in the world.
One group, for example, was curious about the lesions on elephants at the Atlanta Zoo. “What are these?” a student asked, and a teacher responded, “I don’t know. Why don’t you find out?” This led to a student-produced film documenting the effect of overcrowding and unnatural conditions on elephants and other wildlife at the Atlanta Zoo. As a result of what they learned, students boycotted field tips to the zoo until the animals were given better conditions.
Tyson increased the rigor and challenge for the students by bringing in a professional movie producer to help students critique their multimedia projects. This expert was brutal with his criticism but, interestingly, the students didn’t wither or wilt from his honesty; they accepted it without complaint.
His first question whenever he looked at their storyboards and scripts was, “What’s the point?” And if the point wasn’t obvious, he balled up the paper and threw it aside like trash. “Start over,” he would say, “and show me your point.”
He reminded the students that with their films or podcasts, they had only a few moments to convince an audience to do something about a topic they cared about.
The same is true when we plan a lesson or organize a technology integration for a classroom project. We only have a short time to engage our learners and convince them that a concept is worth learning. It is during this critical period that we have an opportunity to hook our students’ imagination, curiosity, and involvement.
What is the point you’re trying to make? Start with the objective and stay on it, even if your activities allow room and time for your students to wander on their own branched paths. What are the learning goals? What is it that students should be able to do or understand as a result of this lesson, and how will the students demonstrate their comprehension?
This “backward design” of lesson planning — beginning with the end in mind — is the basis of Understanding By Design by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, a model of lesson planning and implementation that focuses on identifying a “big idea” as a main point and stepping through it systematically. I’ve collected a few links here for a quick study, but I highly recommend reading the book thoroughly and adopting its tenents. We should strive to plan lessons and design learning units that make a point and stay focused.
How many times have you heard a student ask, “Why am I learning this?”
What they’re really asking is “What’s the point?”
We owe them an answer.
Oh, and by the way, I like today’s “Word of the Day,” too. Make sure your lessons aren’t edentulous.
This blog expresses the personal opinions of the author and is not affiliated
with nor representative of any company, employer, or other entity.
Posted on March 24th, 2009 by Sharon Elin
Filed under: Uncategorized
[...] If you do not know what these evils are, read Sharon Elin’s latest blog posting: What’s your point? [...]
Thank you! I would never have been able to explain this important topic so well. The information is very timely and should be taken seriously by all who claim to use ICT in education.
Thank you for this blog post. There are so many times that I have thought “what’s the point” are we doing this for the sake of doing technology or for learning. You are so gifted in putting into words the things that we need to be thinking about and working towards. I am certainly going to be more aware of what I am doing and why.
After 30 years of focusing on standards, rubrics, time on task and quality teaching/learning, you would think educators would have it down pat by now, but Nooo! Thanks for focusing on this. If more people would approach the teachers who are reluctant to use technology with these ideas, I think they would see technology as a part of a systematic whole and embrace its use.
Thanks for commenting, Kobus. I agree that this is an important, although unwelcome, topic. We educators are caught in a political conundrum. Most creative educators worry that following a prescribed curriclum squelches imagination and creativity in lesson plans. They believe that teaching the required standards leads to meaningless “teaching to the test.”
I believe, though, that truly creative teachers can incorporate the standards within relevant and engaging lessons, and the concepts can be taught without drill and kill tactics — and students will still pass the tests.
Like them or not, standards aren’t going away in public education–the accountability is too important to the stakeholders who decide how the public funds are spent.
Thanks, Beth! I’ve started asking the same question you asked: “Are we doing this for the sake of doing technology or for learning?” Such an important question! I am guilty of ignoring the question and choosing the fun of the technology rather than concentrating on the learning goals.
I’m committed to turning that around now, though, primarily because non-educators and educators who don’t use technology see what we do as fluff and glitz rather than meaningful learning activities. We need to be careful about this, because their perception wins out over our intention every time.
You make a valuable point, Sheryl — thanks for your comment. Educators are, indeed, burned out on initiatives that call for “standards, rubrics, time on task and quality teaching/learning.” Part of their frustration with the whole focus on standardized curriculum is that it has always been presented in a linear, bulleted, killjoy format.
The power of technology is that it can help break through the boring barriers and infuse creativity into the mix. I don’t think we’re facing an either/or proposition that says you either must follow the standards OR you use technology and other creative teaching methods. Instead, I think we need to accept the dichotomy and marry the two.
The challenge is finding teachers who can embrace both views.
Sharon,
This is well written and comes at the perfect time of year for educators. I am one of the teachers willing to “marry the two” and I am not alone. My argument would be the greatest challenge is finding administrators at the building level all the way up the ladder to the school board who are willing to do the same. When I say they will embrace both views I mean they (especially lead-teacher specialists) will put some meat behind their words/views and provide the support and mechanisms necessary for teachers to accomplish what you have so eloquently described. Often this would include removing barriors rather than supplying additional hard or software.
You hammered the right nail here, Mr.G. (”…the greatest challenge is finding administrators at the building level all the way up the ladder to the school board who are willing to do the same.”). Too often, teachers get blamed for not using technology, when the truth is we’re not allowed to use much of it! We do need the support and backing of the school boards and administrators, because they will be the ones who can remove the barriers. Our task in the meantime is to encourage these changes, perhaps by developing prototype lessons that will demonstrate the dynamic advantages and power of using focused technology. Thanks for being a teacher who isn’t afraid to jump in to try, while still understanding the crucial value of maintaining focus on academic rigor.
Sharon.,
I agree. I remember the phrase “Mile wide and inch deep” to describe curriculum in the 1980’s..seems to apply 20 years later..
Tim
The blog was a real eye - opener in the sence that we as teachers get overwhelmed by the power / functions of the modern echnology. We tend to lose focus of our real purpose - to use the technology to enhance our teaching and not to teach the technology.