A quick note before disconnecting from the airport wifi nipple and boarding the plane for home.

Before I headed to San Antonio, I mused about the being at a conference anonymous(e)ly...and wondered what would happen afterward. I no longer have to wonder.

I had someone in line at a Starbucks (at least a mile from the conference center) turn to me yesterday and tell me how much she liked my presentation. And someone on the shuttle over to the airport this morning knew me by name (even pronounced it correctly) and then complimented me and talked grading all the way here. Very sweet and unexpected events. And another couple of examples for me about the oddly public nature of sharing---when people know me and I don't know them at all. Life is full of wonderful surprises. Here's hoping I learn from them all.

Labels: staff development

Today is a travel day for me. In a few hours, I will be on a homeward bound plane. I am ready to be home and have a couple of days of "normal" before the next conference (now only 4 days away).

The ASCD annual conference was a fantastic experience and I highly recommend attending one if and when you can. There is an incredible amount of expertise available for access. I really appreciated that this conference is not specialized. I've been to plenty of science conventions...a couple of tech ones...gifted ed...and a few other boutique things. They were wonderful in their own ways---and I do believe that the science specific ones helped me the most early in my career. But now, it is much more valuable for me to see the big picture. I liked the smorgasbord of possibilities offered here.

As with any conference, the quality of the presentations was hit and miss. I had a couple of outstanding and engaging sessions to sit in on...a couple so-so...and two truly awful eye-bleach necessitating ones. There is always a roulette feel to picking a session. There were so many (seemingly) wonderful choices which you finally narrow down to one before hauling your cookies to the room and discovering if you're a winner or loser. Generally speaking, I would say that classroom teachers have the most difficulty with presenting to other adults. They are obviously very knowledgeable about a given topic and passionate about what they do. They are probably amazing in the classroom with kids. They have a lot to share---they just need some help in getting their message out in a way that connects with an adult audience.

One of the things that impressed me most about this conference is ASCD's commitment to social media and using that to help members connect with one another and have a voice. I did get to meet the two communications staff members who tweet for the organization. I was very impressed with their professionalism and their earnestness in listening to us. For example, it was nice to actually be involved with a conversation about the Common Core Standards (instead of being told what I should think about them...as I am at home). How refreshing to not be bullied into giving up critical thinking.

I have a couple of posts started that will pull out some of the larger take-aways for me. Thank you, ASCD, for allowing me to present and to learn. At the moment, I am physically tired, but my professional spirit is rejuvenated, refreshed, and ready to work even harder on behalf of students everywhere.

Labels: staff development

About this time last year, I tossed my hat in the ASCD Conference ring. It was not the first time that I had applied to present, but this was the first time my presentation was accepted. And since finding out that last July that I had made the cut, I have looked forward to today. Whether or not it's true, I have always looked at ASCD as The Big Show. This is the premier conference in education. It's where the experts come out to play. While I do not consider myself an expert, I do believe that I have things to share and can do it in a meaningful way. I like working with teachers.

The shot above was from my vantage point about 10 minutes before the official start of my session. And just like NSTA last year, they had to close the doors and declare the room full prior to my scheduled start time. We had at least 200 people in a room that had been scheduled for 160 (and I had prepared only 150 copies of my handout). This was far and away the largest group I have ever presented to and it was such an adrenaline rush that two hours later, I still have some butterflies and shakes. They were an amazing crowd to be with: fantastic energy.

I took my new powerpoint out for a test drive. I liked its look and flow, but I also tried to squeeze in too much for the 90 minutes. I had to rush a bit at the end. I think the other part of that is simply the size of the crowd. Getting 200 people to start and stop their conversations takes time, especially when the discussion is so rich. I will have to rethink things a bit if I have another opportunity like this.

Overall, feedback was positive. I had several people talk to me after the presentation to thank me and tell me how much they liked the session. ASCD has limited (as in 10) evaluations for each session and I was provided with a copy of each as I left. I scored all 3's and 4's and all but one "Yes" in terms of interest in learning more and attending a PD Institute on the topic. In terms of written comments, the most common theme was that they thought I had great technology skills. I used PollEverywhere and showed them my Delicious site and grading wiki. This was also the first time I put my blog and twitter handle next to my real name. It's a transition point for me.

Someone wrote that this was "one of the best presentations I have attended so far---articulate, knowledgeable, even-handed, informative." No negative comments, but a wish for "more examples on standards-based report cards and information on whether they improve student achievement." Point well taken, I think. It is something else I need to work on. I had one person ask me if there were any more evaluations because this was one session that she really wanted to give ASCD feedback about (in a good way). It was a very sweet thought.

On a personal note, I was delighted to have some friends in the room. One was someone I used to work with when I was in the Assessment division. She was a great help with handouts today and helped me celebrate afterward. There was also a science coach I worked with last year (total surprise to see him at the conference). I also met Joe Wood, whose blog I have enjoyed for awhile and have gotten to know a bit through Twitter and Facebook.

I feel like I can relax now (once the adrenaline rush wears off). Tomorrow is the final day of the conference. I am looking forward to the chance to continue to learn with others before folding up my tent and heading home.

Labels: grading, staff development

I consider myself to be a relatively private person. My personal life is quiet and uneventful for the most part. I am enjoying living alone (at least for now) and getting out to visit with friends when I can. I'm a rather nondescript little mouse.

My job, however, is a stark contrast to this. In that role, I have a very public existence. I was reminded of that earlier this week when I was approached at a conference by one person who referred to me as "the assessment guru" and by another who had to tell me about the various presentations she's seen me do and the impact it is having on her classroom. All good things---all very pleasant interactions---all made me grateful that these relative strangers made an effort to visit with me. However, for those two, there were probably several others who did not make the same choice. The thing is, when I look into a crowd, I never know who is looking back.

This weekend will be a little different. I am in San Antonio for the annual ASCD Conference. It is an event I have been anticipating since last July. A lot of the excitement has to do with seeing presenters I've only been able to admire from afar. For example, I have used quotes from Susan Brookhart's work in many presentations. And bright and early Saturday morning, I get to be the ultimate fangirl and sit in on her session. There will be other similar moments through Monday where I get to be anonymous.

The lone exception will be Sunday afternoon, when it will be my turn to get up and stare into the void once again. I wonder who will be peering back at me.

Labels: staff development

As we move forward with an assessment process for 21st century skills, some aspects are straightforward...and some are squirrely. For example, constructing a task can be something that follows a regular pattern. There are parts that should be included, ways to check for alignment, and so forth. It's the evaluation portion that isn't always predictable.

Let me give you a little piece that I'm wrestling with: Organize ideas.

What does that mean to you? What qualities come to your mind when you think about a student who has organized their ideas? Would your answer be different if I told you to just consider what an organized 8-year old would look like---or are organized ideas more universal in concept (you're either organized in your thinking or not, regardless of age)?

Suppose you were constructing a rubric for this...what would you include? Does organization need an audience---in other words, does your style only have to make sense to you...or do others have to be able to ferret out the method to your madness? Do there have to be levels of detail or an evident hierarchy, regardless of whether the organization is text-only or mindmappish? Are there any aspects to organization which transcend the medium used---if I organize using notecards, a task list in Outlook, or a flowchart in webspiration, can I identify the essence of organized ideas?

What would you suggest? What would you like to see?

Labels: assessment, technology

Conversations in education are so thick with references to the Common Core Standards these days that one can hardly swing a virtual cat and not hit a blog post about them. All but two states are currently dancing with the math and literacy standards. Kentucky has already adopted them without having seen the final version. And while the hoopla will continue throughout the spring, something else has quietly started: a new set of national science frameworks are underway. "Once the framework is final, it will be used as the basis for teams from three national organizations—the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Achieve, a group formed by governors and business leaders—to collaborate on writing the standards." (from Work Begins on 'Next Generation' of Science Standards at Education Week)

Our state completely biffed its opportunity last year to do something positive with the state science standards. Instead of focusing on what was best for kids and the opportunity to deeply explore a set of fundamental concepts, we have a shotgun approach and an overwhelming amount of tediousness. This sad state should make me more excited at the prospect that we might get some "new" ones via the Common Core Standards initiative, but it doesn't.

First of all, the committee which is writing these new frameworks hasn't a single teacher. Scientists? Sure. People who actually understand what happens in classrooms and schools? Nope. I understand that there may be opportunity later for teachers to become involved, but if the process used to write math and literacy standards is any indication, there will be no educators included. Fail number two is simply the motivation behind this work. New standards will not lead to change in science literacy. You can only get there through instruction---and there is no money targeted for this.

If you live in a state where the Common Core Standards are on the table, be sure to ask your education leaders about the motivation in participating with this initiative. In our state, there has been no discussion about whether or not these standards and the ramifications of using them are in the best interests of children. Teachers participating on the review committees have told me that it has been made clear to them that the state is interested in the funding it might get by adopting these (or gaining funding freed up from other sources if the state doesn't have to create its own tests). Teachers in these groups feel the review committees are all for show---that neither state leadership nor the national groups are truly interested in feedback or comment about whether or not the state should move forward to adopting these. If this is true, I find this information deeply troubling.

I have to wonder if this is true in other states. Are we so out of balance in our education system, so overwhelmed with recession and unfunded mandates, so fixated on the bottom line, that the needs of kids have been completely pushed aside for the almighty dollar? I like the promise of a standards-based education---but it is useless without the needs of children being at the center of every decision along the way. From what I'm seeing and hearing, I'm very afraid that it isn't.

Labels: standards

The Southern Fried Scientist recently updated his post explaining How to Brew Beer in a Coffee Maker, Using Only Materials Commonly Found on a Modestly Sized Oceanographic Research Vessel. For me, this post represents the essence of scientistness. It is the sort of innovation which is often found in research labs---but for very good reason, never makes it into the news. Scientists are playful creatures. We are problem-solvers. True blue MacGuyvers.

But there are times when we are too inventive for our own good. And @SFriedScientist's story reminded me of one such event. Where I taught, we often did a fungi unit in the fall. It was good timing as that point in the year had mushrooms springing up everywhere. Their variety, pungency, and shapes (I'm looking at you, Morels) was certainly attention-grabbing. So, in the spirit of the moment, we had classes make root beer. Mind you, I only did this once. Cost, storage, and less than stellar results were all enough to realize that this was an idea best left to others. One of my colleagues did not come to this same conclusion and continued to have students crank out root beer each fall as an extra credit project. This would not have been such a bad thing if the results had stayed in his classroom. They didn't. He would bring them to department meetings---old 2L bottles of root beer (made with baker's yeast, for cryin' out loud) and dixie cups, pouring shots for each of us as if we were involved in some sort of perpetual double dog dare. A circle of Hell undocumented by Dante. Eventually he retired, but the root beer lived on. Bottle after bottle was found squirreled away in his prep room. No dates. No official labels. No way we were opening any of it. I can't claim to have had root beer of any kind since then.

It is probably a very good thing that it wasn't real beer, as proposed at the start of this post. I think I would miss that. But I have to wonder how many similar experiments are going on in labs everywhere. I think there should be a poster session at the next ScienceOnline for people to share the various gerryrigged items they have constructed. I know there's more out there besides tiny bubbles.

Labels: science

*...and were afraid someone would ask.

My ScienceOnline 2010 interview with Bora is available for your reading pleasure over at A Blog Around the Clock. Enjoy!

Labels: blogging

One of the conundrums associated with educational technology is that for all the power that is associated with the various tools, instructional practices are changing very little. An interactive whiteboard (IWB) can be used as little more than a glorified mouse pad in a teacher-centered environment. Blogs, podcast, voicethread presentations, and wikis require access---both in terms of internet filters, computers for students, and broadband. Few places have solved the management issues that arise from having cell phones as educational tools in the classroom. There may well be some stigmas attached to being "techie" in the classroom---or perhaps a resistance or philosophical basis to become so if there are other instructional models which work just fine.

Whatever the reason, there is a clear separation between those who embrace tech in the classroom and those who do not. Until recently, I didn't think the twain would meet. They still may not, but I came to terms with an awful truth this week: EdTech lacks a compelling voice. There are many superstars within the EdTech community, but they have come from within. There has been a lot of ridicule from this same community about Robert Marzano and his current foray into researching interactive whiteboards and other tools. While I agree that the circumstances for his research (i.e. being paid by a IWB company) do not engender trust for the results, the EdTech community has failed to recognize something very important: They need Marzano. Why? Because he is well-respected in the curriculum and instruction world---the one outside of technology...the one most schools and teachers live in. Marzano will be the first crossover star, much like artists that move between musical genres. It doesn't make his message any better, it just means that he will be a Pied Piper leading a lot more people toward EdTech...more than would have ever looked at the realm on their own. Those who have risen within the EdTech ranks are likely to be typecast there. A crossover will not happen from there---it must come from the non-tech side.

I am hoping that EdTech will make its peace with Marzano, instead of continuing to wage a turf war. If not, then I hope that they will find a partner elsewhere on the "outside" that they can work with. Pick a Wiggins, Stiggins, Tomlinson, or McTighe. Get a Reeves, Popham, or Guskey. Because until you capture the attention of that sort of leadership, you will not have their audience. You will not be seen as having a meaningful impact on instruction and assessment, no matter what you know to be true.

Labels: technology