The End is Nigh

Well, Internet, it appears that its that time again. Another semester is coming to a close and with it, my duty to this blog's upkeep. I know you'll all miss me so very much, but take solace in the fact that I will miss all of you just as much. But alas! I won't take up all your precious time with my farewells, let's spend this time together to discuss learning and stuff!

One of the blogs I follow (I'll provide links at the end) is that of Graham Wegner. Recently he posted about the use of data analysis as a tool, not a weapon. While his argument that data gathered from students should be used to inform lessons plans instead of for penalization grade-wise definitely has merit, this is not what I wanted to discuss. At the beginning of the post, he comments that data analysis is not something that comes naturally to him, so the only solution for him, personally, is to constant repeat and drill new concepts into his mind. 

He specifically uses the line that "official training only really points [him] in the right direction." I found this intriguing, as it reflects my current experience right now. Throughout my myriad of different education classes I have encountered numerous strategies, ideas, and methods that I've been told should be included in my own practice. I believe I'm now in the same boat as Graham, as my official training can only offer me so much insight. I think I speak for most of my fellow blogmates when I say, its time for experience! It's time we take what we've larned and work it into a schema that will be beneficial to each of us, personally. But rejoice friends! The time is almost upon us.

This little comic amused me when I first saw it. I can't help but think that this is how a lot of teachers still go about their job. I know for sure that I've had a few that subscribe to this theory of standardization. If a kid doesn't understand what they're teaching, well obviously its the child's fault. Throughout this last semester, I've come to really appreciate the new types and styles of teaching that are becoming more and more prevalent. I'd like to take a little bit to talk about these.

Jumping back to Graham Wegner, he described a practice that was recently adopted in his school that I found really interesting. With the school server, a group of teachers has set up a Minecraft server block. For those who don't know (and there must be very few of you), Minecraft is a game that has exploded in popularity in recent years. When I first played it, it was very basic and cost me 5 dollars to build whatever I wanted. The Minecraft pantheon now stretches across multiple platforms and the merchandise is everywhere. Why not include it in schools?

Calling the server MinecraftEDU, its open to whatever teacher wants to use it. In Wegner’s school, the first was a Vietnamese teacher, who built a world with a variety of ancient styled Vietnamese temples. The class as a whole could then hop online and visit the temples together. Another teacher had her students build an enclosure that possessed the proper amenities to house livestock. These teachers definitely had a background in technology and many don’t. What benefit might such a program have for these teachers?

Well, as one teacher says, she wasn't really sure how to address MinecraftEDU. She was, however, astounded by the level of engagement her students displayed during their free-time in a no rules “lunch-time world”. She even stated that students who usually show a low-level of engagement were right there participating with the rest.

The success of MinecraftEDU illustrates a point that I’ve believed for a long time. Games are important to learning. For how long have games been relegated to “free-time” or “after work is done”? We’ve come to associate games with relaxing. So why NOT include them in the education process if we already know there is a pre-existing level of engagement? We, as teachers, should cater our lessons to our students; we should find an interest they have an work off that. We shouldn’t expect them to conform to our standards or even our division of “worktime” and “playtime”.

I’d like to underline the notion of games as a method of learning and teaching. I may have mentioned it before in passing, but I’d like to bring the game, Foldit, to everyone’s attention. If you haven’t heard of it, Foldit is a game developed by the University of Washington’s Center for Game Science, and revolves around the folding of protein molecules. Using the tools provided by the game, players work to fold the structure of selected proteins as efficiently as possible. The top scores are then analyzed by scientists and tested for their applicability to real-world scenarios, like the targeting and eradication of diseases and other biological innovations.

The results of Foldit are already noteworthy.

• A 2010 paper in the science journal, Nature, credited Foldit's 57,000 players with providing useful results that matched or outperformed algorithmically computed solutions. 
• In 2011, players of Foldit helped to decipther the crystal structure of the Mason-Pfizer monkey virus (M-PMV) retro-viral protease, an AIDS-causing monkey virus. While the puzzle was available for play for a period of three weeks, players produced an accurate 3D model of the enzyme in just ten days. The problem of how to configure the structure of the enzyme had been an unaccomplished goal of scientists for 15 years. 
• In January, 2012, Scientific American reported that the Foldit gamers achieved the first crowd-sourced redesign of a protein. The protein is an enzyme which catalyses the Diels-Alder reactions widely used in synthetic chemistry. A team including David Baker in the Center for Game Science at University of Washington in Seattle computationally designed this enzyme from scratch, but found the potency needing improvement. The Foldit players re-engineered the enzyme by adding 13 amino acids and increased its activity by more than 18 times. 

Never underestimate the dedication of a puzzle-solver or the power of alternative learning. The use of games in education should not be overlooked, as the benefits are already visible.

To finish this off, as per usual, here’s some art! This one is by one of Brock’s own professors, Scott Sawtell (for the time being, good luck elsewhere Scott!). You’ve seen enough painting over the past few weeks, I’m sure you have your own opinions by now if you didn’t before, so I’ll abstain from my usual commentary.

Scott Sawtell

There is a light that never goes out

                                                                                                                                                                    

Surprise! I’m not finished yet. I know we’ve already said our heartfelt goodbyes, dear friends, and I never had any intention of misleading you (Okay, so I may have a little bit), BUT if I’ve learned anything this semester its that BRANDING IS IMPORTANT. So guess what!? You’re stuck with me. I may not be as regular as I was when I had due dates, but I won’t be leaving you after all! I have a brand to maintain! This class may have ended but the Blog shall survive!

Until next time, Internet!

P.S. http://gwegner.edublogs.org/  -  Graham Wegner's Blog
        https://fold.it/portal/  -  Foldit

Ooooooh... The Cube!

Hello Internet

Its me, once again, surprise! This week I thought I'd take a little bit of time to talk about some of the new tech I've encountered that's being used by educators at this very moment. I'm sure the vast majority of you have heard of the Cube. Actually, I'm quite positive that nearly everyone reading this blog has heard of it (mostly because we were at the same presentation, hi friends!). But I digress, let's talk about the Cube. First things first, I just want to get this out of the way now, but I have absolutely no idea why its called the Cube. I probably should have asked, because its plagued me since the presentation, but I suppose its too late now. But its time for real discussion, I swear.

From what I learned, the Cube is basically a place where teachers can share, discuss, and trade their teaching resources. Everything appeared neatly organized and easy to access, which is definitely a bonus. To further sweeten the pot for you prospective teachers, the Cube is members only. Gone are the useless additions by people who have no idea what they're talking about! That's another bonus for me right there at least.

I didn't exactly start this post looking to review the Cube, however. The Cube is just a jumping point to a large topic, namely, sharing resources. I've seen both ends of the spectrum here. I've worked with teachers who couldn't shove enough lesson plans in front of me if they tried. But I've also seen the opposite; teachers who guard their plan binders as if they'd found treasure and didn't want to share. I, for the life of me, cannot understand the latter. If you have a genuinely good idea that works well in your own practice, why wouldn't you want to share it? Its not as if there are education royalties where you'll be paid X amount of money every time someone uses a lesson plan.

I'm pretty sure, or at least, I hope, that the knowlede hoarders are a minority. I haven't had enough experience to judge that for sure. What I did find particularly interesting was that resources like the Cube don't exist already. Now I don't want to devalue the Cube (especially because I plan to make heavy use of it), but in this day and age I'm kind of astounded nothing as streamlined as it exists already. There's a giant push for 21st century skills and literacies to be included in the classroom so I had just assumed the same efforts would be worked into the practice of teaching as well. Since that may not be the case just yet, at least it will start with the Cube!

I saw some of my numerous viewers noticed the lack of artwork last post and for that I apologize profusely! To make up for it, first of all, here's another of Jared Africa's works. Titled BOOOOOOOOM! (with 8 O's, I counted), its a prime example of how strange and wild art can be.

Jared Africa

BOOOOOOOOM!

And another image, as a further apology. To contrast Jared's work, here's the complete opposite end of the spectrum. This pencil drawing, by Julie Rhodes, is titled Keeping Watch. That linework! The value structure! Just lovely. 

Julie Rhodes

Keeping Watch

Until next time Internet!

On Integration at the Secondary School Level...

Hello again Internet,

The concept of integration has been one I've encounter frequently over the past two weeks. Now, I realize I've complained in a previous post about how integration across subject matters won't exactly work in a secondary school setting. Recently, I've encountered some opposition to my opinion, so I thought it was about time to set the record straight. In contrast to my regular rants plagued by unanswerable hypothetical questions, I also intend to offer some ways to actually fix this issue (I know, I know, I can barely contain my excitement either)

First off, this push for integration is coming at a strange time. Across many different courses I'm currently taking, I've been told that integrating subjects will lead to a broader, more well rounded understanding in both subjects on the student's part. I don't disagree with this statement, not in the slightest. What I have issue with is the actual feasibility of this in the current educational system. Integration at an elementary level is a completely different story; teachers have full control over most, if not all, subject areas, and therefore can quite easily connect these topics. In high school, this is far from the case though.

Not only do multiple different teachers instruct each subject, each student has a vastly different timetable that is geared towards their needs and interests. Due to this, integration at the high school level has only a few options, as I see it at least.

1. The teacher integrates another subject area into one they currently teach. I'll use my teachable as an example. This could look like an English class doing some writing assignments on artworks they research. With this approach, the subject the student has chosen to take, namely English, has some art components crammed in as well. The mark the student receives is only for English, despite the art information they've learned.

2. Two or more teachers collaborate and create an extensive unit that bridges courses. While this could potentially work out well, it hinges on the fact that all students in one class must take the other. There could not be an option to take one class and not the other, as concepts and lessons would transcend the course boundary here. This would severely limit the timetable options for the student.

From what I can tell, each option has severe limitations. Is integration really worth it? The only other option I can see to successfully integrate subjects together would be a complete paradigm shift of the secondary school system.

What would that shift look like, you ask? To work correctly, in my opinion, we would have to do away with individual subjects. Instead, students would choose from integrated "blocks" that would take up their entire semester. Consisting of four subjects, the block-course would be co-created by as many teachers, who would then work together to teach an integrated unit that covers all their respective areas of expertise. Sounds nice, doesn't it? No real downsides for the student (provided their is a variety of course-blocks to choose from) and the teachers work with their peers to make comprehensive lessons.

Unfortunately, it also means undermining the entirety of the high school system. This would, in turn, affect post-secondary schools as well, as they would need to change their requirements. The system I've outlined here is far from perfect of course, but, for lack of a better alternative, its the only way I see of making integration actually beneficial to both students and teachers.

Got any other ideas how integration could work better? Just let me know!

Until next time, internet friends!

Visual Literacy and the Ravings of an Artist

We meet again Internet,

While I usually limit my rantings to topics revolving around education, today I'd like to shift my focus a little. Don't worry, dear readers, I won't stray too far from Education that my blog becomes unrecognizable; I know all of you just love my current subject matter. But there's an issue I have that I feel the need to tell strangers on the internet. This issue is the treatment of Visual Arts in our school system today (I told you it wouldn't be too far off the Education mark).

To be frank, the attitude towards the Arts is deplorable. Now, deplorable is not a word I use lightly. In fact, I rarely use the word at all. This should highlight my feelings towards this issue; I delved deep in my lexicon for a word reserved only for the most heinous instances (heinous is another one of these seldom used words of mine).

But I digress, the visual arts seem to be a second-hand subject in most schools. They are taught irregularly and for awkward lengths of time in many elementary schools, and exist almost solely as a requirement at the high school level. Oftentimes the arts are criticized for being inapplicable in everyday life, in contrast to say math or science. These statements make me want to cause people physical pain. I never would do that of course, no need to get skittish, dear readers, you're safe from my wrath.

Visual literacy, meaning the ability to understand visual imagery, spatial problems and the like, is equally important to logical reasoning or measurement skills. Its a unique to approach and potentially solve problems, but visual literacy is going overlooked in the current educational system. And no, its not a lack of interest causing these issues. To me, it seems to stem for this idea that math and science are the most important subjects. High schools students can choose between physics, chemistry, and biology, but there's no choice in the arts. No separate painting, drawing or sculpting. At best there is a separate class for photography.

"Oh" you cry, " but there's only a limited amount of money! We can't pay for everything we like!" After a laugh of derision I would respond, "Fools! There's NO funding for the arts!"  That's correct, I'm not misquoting anyone, surprisingly. In Ontario, there is no specific funding for the arts. Thats none. Zip. Zero. Nadda. Nuthin'. All the money going towards the arts in Ontario comes from a "miscellaneous account". Do you know what also comes from that account? MISCELLANEOUS THINGS. The arts shouldn't have to share a budget with pep rallies and cleaning supplies, thats ridiculous.

I have one more gripe before I sign off today. Frequently the arts are discussed in terms of their value towards other subject areas. I'm going to stop right there for a moment. Let that thought digest. Seems reasonable doesn't it? 'What can the arts teach that will help in other subject areas' isn't too bad a question is it? Now let's switch it up a little. What if I were to ask, how does Phys Ed. affect our students' history marks? Its starting to sound a little strange now. Why would those two things need to connect? They seem nearly unrelated! Now imagine this is how the board decides your funding. Suddenly, you've got more in common with art teachers that you ever realized. You're outraged! Why should my subject getting funding based on its applications towards other subjects! Its an ugly truth, but its how our school system decides on funding. The arts are "miscellaneous", and no, they don't need more money because they don't affect our student's science scores, which are what really matters.

Now that I've inundated you with a ridiculous amount of rhetorical questions, I hope you're as annoyed as I am. In my usual fashion, I have no answer for these questions, but I hope at least you'll consider them for a bit. In fact, I implore you to consider them for at least 5 minutes. These questions may not affect you, but think of the art teachers! Think of me! I like funding as much as the next person and I firmly believe the arts should be judged on their own merits, not what they bring to other subject areas. I'll leave you with a piece as per usual, this one by the artist known as Mister Brainwash (aka Thierry Guetta).



Surprise! There's a lesson behind this piece. From my knowledge in Visual arts (which I couldn't have learned in any other class) I know Thierry Guetta to be a thieving little monster, concerned only with a paycheque. This piece here is "appropriated" (read a "stolen") from Andy Warhol's work. Crowds made Mister Brainwash a fortune, buying piece after piece of unoriginal work churned out by his art factory. Moral of the story? Visual literacy is at least as important as other literacies.

Until next time, Internet,

cjarvis

Blog Round Two: Revenge of the Blog

Surprise Internet!

Now, I know I made quite the heartfelt goodbye last time we spoke, as the course I created this blog for had concluded. However, the blogging shall continue! I know all you dear readers are just clamoring for some more of my wonderful insights, and what kind of person would I be if I didn't oblige?

Recently, we have been discussing the concept of literacy in my class. Now I know you're probably thinking, "Oh, literacy? Like reading and writing and such?" and you wouldn't be wrong. I'm not talking about your run-on-the-mill literacy though. There are multiple types of literacy, including, but not limited too, media literacy, critical literacy, and physical literacy. Being literate in these subject areas involves having an understanding how to properly and effectively navigate the given subject area.

I find this entire concept to be fascinating! Now, dear reader, I can't say for sure what type of education you experienced, but personally, I never heard these different literacies mentioned overtly. They simply came about naturally through the course of my schooling. This is a bit confusing to me by itself. Did I just have masterful teachers who seamlessly blended these different concepts into my lessons? That could be the case, but I really doubt it. I'm sure one or two of my previous teachers consciously worked the different literacies into their lesson plans, but definitely not all of them.

At this point in my thought process, I became a little confused. If my previous teachers had little knowledge of multiple literacies, but I still managed to become fluent in a variety of them, why are they being taught explicitly now? It seems as if someone took a concept most were already familiar with, gave it an education-y sounding name, and suddenly we have new material to learn! It begs the question, will I be anymore effective at getting these multiple literacies across now that I know of them? I was multi-lingual in terms of these different literacies without even knowing it before, so I can't really say for sure that naming these concepts will make me any more proficient in sneaking them into my lessons.

Honestly, it seems the best way to get these concepts across to my students would be to explicitly inform them, much like the way I'm learning about them now. Sneaking them in may give them the skills needed, but I don't see any real benefit to it. I seem to be talking myself in circles at this point, and I don't see a conclusion in sight (this seems to be characteristic of my blog posts, but you already knew that, dear avid reader). It would seem I just need to play the waiting game at this point, as I won't really have answers to these questions until I actually begin to teach!

Hopefully my musings here have given you something to think about, I know I sure have enough. In keeping with tradition, I'll leave you with another artwork, this time by Jared Africa. Equal parts horrifying and playful, I give you  Blueby Wooby!

Until next time!

cjarvis

Some Optimism for Once

Internet,

Its that time, finally! This will be my final course related post, much to the disappointment of my numerous, avid readers. Throughout this blog, I have often brought up rhetorical questions directed at (and occasionally criticizing) the methods in which teacher education has been taught. I thought I would take this final opportunity to end this on a more positive note!

While a good chunk of what I've learned through this curriculum course will not be emulated in my own practice, I have acquired some useful skills as well. The concept of backwards design is one that I will appropriate into my own repertoire, albeit an edited version of what I learned in class. Instructional formulation through backwards design was not something I had considered prior to this course. High school classrooms usually shows signs of scaffolding, meaning that each new piece of information builds on top of a previous knowledge base. I figured this linear process would translate well when forming lessons plans as well.

It would appear that I was wrong. I can admit it, don't worry, my pride won't suffer too much.

By tackling large concepts and assignments first, I was astounded to find how clear class planning became. By knowing the end result, it became much, much easier to fill in the gaps on the road to completion.

I won't be adopting this practice wholeheartedly though, as I mentioned above. While the overall concept definitely appeals to me, some of the middle steps will definitely need some work-shopping. I found the meticulous scanning and clustering (scanning and clustering, scanning and clustering, vertically and horizontally) to be extremely tedious, It made me lose focus on the larger unit I was developing. I would love to offer an alternative; some way I've found to make this simpler, but I can't. The development of my teaching style is an ongoing process and will constantly evolve as I do. However, the first step to finding a solution is, oftentimes, to first identify the problem.

While I have been critical these past few posts, I don't want any of you dear readers to get the wrong idea. I do enjoy the education system and teaching is definitely a passion of mine. I'm currently at an odd stage though; living in both worlds, as a teacher and simultaneously, as a student. To compound this, the education system (as I have mentioned before) is in a transitory state. There is a shift taking place from traditional methods to modern ones, which is quite reflective of my own experiences. At one point, our previous instructional strategies were the way to do things, there was no alternative. By being critical, I only hope to avoid glorifying these new methods as the only method. Education is constantly changing, so we shouldn't put all our chips behind one style. There you have it folks, I'm not actually cynical, I'm helping by being critical!

As always, here's some art.  Today, the work reflects my mindset, considering all my (numerous) deadlines approaching. This performance piece by Olivier de Sagazan haunts my nightmares, and now I will force it on you too.

And now you're scarred for life. 

Musings on Curriculum

Hello again Internet,

Its blogging time. Today is going to be slightly different than my usual post, dear readers. Previously, I've used my course readings to inspire my biweekly rants, but this week, I have no readings. Instead, I'd like to share some of my disconnected musings regarding curriculum planning and implementation.

The entire course this blog was created for is focused primarily on the formation of lesson plans from curriculum documents. A lengthy process has been outlined for us, consisting of informational scans in multiple directions, clustering and bundling knowledge, and identifying the knowledge, actions, and mind-frame each student should possess by the course's completion. I have ranted on multiple occasions now about the shortcomings of this process (primarily the fact that it is an organic, changing process, that is taught in a strictly linear format), but a new concept that irks me has surfaced.

Recently I completed an observational placement in a high school for a different course of mine. I watched teaching style, lesson plans, and marking schemes very closely. Following this experience, one question has plagued me ever since.

Does anyone actually USE this lengthy process to form their lessons? Sure as hell doesn't look like it. That isn't even my major issue though. I have no problem learning a framework for lesson creation that I may never use again. I do, however, have a problem when that framework is presented as fact.

From what I saw in this placement specifically, teachers know what they are going to teach (for the most part), and they try to get that knowledge to the students as easily as possible. That's all it boils down to. One teacher I worked with told me (and his entire class) that this was the first time he had ever taught this class, so he had no idea how it was going to work out. Does that sound like the words of someone who isolated and has strategically placed the Know, Do, and Be of the course throughout the entire semester? Definitely not. I did, however, find the class extremely receptive to his honesty, which in turn translated to attentiveness to his lesson.

I really don't have a conclusion to this idea, but my questions were to prominent just to ignore. Is it the mark of an effective teacher to distill manageable skills from curriculum documents, or do we instead look to the teacher who is personable, knowledgeable, and provides and interesting lesson?

This is not to say these two are mutually exclusive by any means. I simply believe that teacher education should not possess the rigidity I have experienced. Anyone who has ever been in school can attest to the fact that each teacher is different from the next. I believe teacher education should not only recognize this, but nurture these differences.

The work I've chosen for this week reflects the reproducibility that our current teacher education system would seem to seek. I will leave you with more question; do we really want a fleet of teachers who glean information the same, who deconstruct curriculum the same?




Therry Guetta AKA Mister Brainwash

Trained by street artists, including Banksy and Sheppard Fairey, Guetta "appropriated" (stole) works from many unknown artists. He produces hundreds of copies of the same work in his art factory. He continually pumps out "art" he has never actually touched. His workers churn our more and more "Mister Brainwash" originals, devaluing art to a mere consumable.