Redefining Search!

Note - this post was originally written back in May/June but never published for a variety of complex and personal reasons mainly having to do with my health . . . but all is good now!


May 2016 - I meant to write this posting about a month ago, but things have gotten a little bit away from me with moving back to Asia for next school year. Too much to do with so little time left in Poland before we move on from here. On a fast train heading south to Kraków gives me a bit of time to reflect, write and just think . . .


After attending Learning2 Africa in Johannesburg in the fall, I have been thinking how I needed to alter my approach in the HS towards teaching research skills to students.  For the last number of years we have taught and reviewed research skills with all G9 students as they entered the HS (through a series of projects, lessons and workshops culminating in a large, personal research project in their English class) and in G11 as students began the Extended Essay process. Changes this year in faculty, curriculum, and the approach to launching the EE have resulted in most of this work with research skills falling away. After attending Jeff Utech's extended session at L2Jo'burg on research skills, I knew I had to do something different right away.

Rather than continuing with the model of periodically working with whole grades of students, I shifted my focus to the faculty. My reining was simple - up-skill the entire faculty to give them the same toolbox of resources, techniques and strategies and they will in turn use, model and train all students in the same way, in every grade and every class. What I developed was a differentiated workshop targeted at individual departments/disciplines which worked through how research skills have changed with Internet-enabled mobile devices in the hands of every student. As teachers, if we are still asking questions which can easily be Googled, then we are asking the wrong kinds of questions of our students. Are your students trained in how to conduct a really deep and targeted search, or to cope with conducting effective research when they do not have any search terms?

To answer these questions, I put teachers into research scenarios which changed their thinking about research.  When you have no search terms to begin with, research ceases being a solitary act. It naturally evolves into a collaborative and creative process involving critical thinking and communication - the 4 C's of 21st Century Learning. For example, in the workshop I had teachers work in small groups and try to answer the following questions about this image: what is shown in the photo and where was it taken?

Do you know what this is?  And where was this photo taken?  [can you figure it out without using Image Search?]

Individually, most teachers had no idea where to start with such a task. In their small groups some started discussing what they thought it might be and what search terms they could use to describe the image. All sorts of search terms were tried ranging from "golden dog poo" to "swirls" and to "golden ratio spirals". Other groups tried to work around the task to find the actual photo on the web, or to use Google Image Search to find similar images, but I did not provide them a copy of the image to work with. The most successful groups spent a lot of time talking and collaborating about what they thought the image might be, before jumping into any searches. These groups hit upon really important search terms like "Buddha" and "statue" through their collective knowledge, which they used to quickly used to figure out that these are the top knots on the back of Buddha's head at Wat Pho (the reclining Buddha) in Bangkok. Every time I did this workshop with another department team, they all agreed that this exercise was not only fun and exciting, but very thought provoking. As we are now an MYP candidate school, this exercise placed teachers in an open inquiry process which was unfamiliar for some.

Some of the groups who started with an easier task wanted to try the more challenging images rather than finishing the rest of the workshop. Simple testimony of how much they enjoyed working on this. The remainder of the workshop focused on sets of resources and alternative sites for research, compiled by discipline.  If you are interested, you can use the following shared doc as a resource with your faculty or students.

Harder - Who are these women (what "people" are they)?  And what does "what they are doing" mean?

Following the ripples and impact of these workshops was really interesting. It was great to hear about how teachers took my materials back to use with their classes for ongoing research projects, and how students could immediately employ these techniques and resources for their projects. Other teachers still required more support  and booked me to work with their classes - even small steps forward are still making forward progress.  One tech-hesitant teacher took the initiative to present these skills and resources to their class who were engaged with an large-scale IB Diploma Internal Assessment involving deep research into a topic of the student's choice. This teacher still felt that they could not completely help all of the students in their class with their research so I was brought in to work with a few particular students. I ended up working with two students in particular who were truly "stuck" in their reach process and it was really gratifying to help them get unstuck, and then immediately pass on some more advanced techniques to their friends . . . Students teaching students . . . it doesn't get better than that!

Another teacher had an epiphany in the workshop, and took my exercise with open, collaborative inquiry revolving around an image, and adapted it directly into their lesson . . . the next day! This teacher had been struggling with a unit centered on the Renaissance and the rise of religious art and its symbolism. The lesson changed from a lecture and discussion about a few important pieces of art, to open inquiry process where small groups of students truly looked at and analyzed a piece art to discover its importance, symbolism, and hidden meaning. This teacher told me with great enthusiasm about how the class were looking and thinking deeply about art for the first time . . . in years . . . and how much they enjoyed the process of discovery.  Huge win, and a big step forward.

Epilogue (October 2016) - a number of months have passed by since I wrote this, plus I have changed schools and continents. At my new school in Singapore, not a whole lot is different and I have discovered that I need to take the same approach with faculty. So Redefining Search is being rebooted and recycled, and relaunched with both faculties that I work with (my new school has two separate systems/curricula under one roof).  It's interesting to think about how the "students are digital natives" thinking has really taken hold all over the world, and how teachers don't often consider how student's search skills (and their own) need upgrading.  Taking this approach of up-skilling the entire faculty in order to reach the most students (hopefully all of them ;-) has been a successful and necessary approach at my last two schools . . . so, how are your search skills and the skills of your faculty? 

When things unexpectedly come together . . .

Sometimes, magic happens all by itself . . . that's why it's magic I guess.  Sometimes, it's hard to see the magic even when it is right in front of you, which is why it is so important to work together, collaborate on projects, bounce ideas off of one another, and most of all, just be transparent as your colleagues will see things that you do not or have overlooked . . . and that's when the magic happens.

So why am I blathering on about magic?  No, I have not dusted off the old "Magic - The Gathering" cards, not that I have any of those anyways ;-)  The reason why I am thinking about all of this is a moment in a meeting last week where a number of fragmented projects/ideas/initiatives all came together and fell into place.  Just like magic!  Let me explain what went down . . .

One of my favourite "tech quotes" of all time

After coming back from the IB Computer Science curriculum review, I had a number of ideas about implementing a Computational Thinking curriculum at my school, which would be integrated into K-12 classes (I wrote about this in my previous posting here).  As we are in the process of applying for the PYP and MYP programs, we have an unique opportunity to put such a program in place from the beginning.  To facilitate a conversation about this, I called a meeting with the curriculum director, the two principals and one of the teachers who will be transitioning into offering MYP Design.

The meeting progressed nicely at first, where I introduced the group to the Teaching and Learning with Technology (in the IB Programmes Guide) that I worked on last year.  I am really excited about how we can use this guide and the AID lens as we think about technology as a literacy.  The Teaching and Learning with Technology guide provides us with the big umbrella for digital learning, under which all of our work as tech coaches and Co-Directors of Digital Learning (we refer to ourselves as the Digital Learning Team or DLT for short) will fall.  The first puzzle piece (shaped like an umbrella) fell into place.

I then brought the ISTE Standards for Students into the conversation.  As a school (since before I arrived here seven years ago), we have always said that we used/employed these standards for students, but we have never really documented the how/where/why of the standards nor have we truly adopted the corresponding standards for teachers.  All talk and no concrete action, which has been frustrating.  In talking about how the DLT would like to formalise the school-wide adoption of the ISTE Standards, a whole bunch of puzzle pieces got shaken loose in the conversation.

We first talked about how we would like to implement the standards for students by embedding them into the PYP and MYP planners.  This will provide us, in our roles as tech coaches, with an avenue to engage our faculty in planning for the integration of technology far beyond simply using technology in the classroom for teaching and learning, the creation of digital products, or conducting research online.  The 6 ISTE Standards for Students are:

1. Creativity and Innovation
2. Communication and Collaboration
3. Research and Information Fluency
4. Critical Thinking, Problem Solving and Decision Making
5. Digital Citizenship
6. Technology Operations and Concepts

By formally (and finally) adopting the ISTE Standards for Students, we would have a framework in place where we can address and integrate Digital Citizenship and Computational Thinking into the existing curriculum, and extend our students beyond using technology.  I also mentioned how we should look to the future as the student standards are being redrafted right now, so we should think about incorporating the new standards into our unit planners.  This proved to be the perfect timing to do this work, as there is a committee looking at our curriculum documentation and implementing the new planners - a big piece of the puzzle!

This immediately led to an expansion of the conversation to include the ISTE Standards for Teachers.  The teacher standards are currently in a similar state of implementation - talked about but never fully implemented in any way.  Where it has always fallen apart is that the school has said we use the teacher standards, but has never backed that up or tied it to teacher evaluation/appraisal.  With a reformulation and relaunch of our process/system for evaluation, unexpectedly another puzzle piece was on the table and "in play".  "Timing is everything" as the saying goes, and the timing was perfect to have the ISTE Standards for Teachers embedded in our evaluation/appraisal process.  Right now, we are a technology-rich school with lots of great things going on that are being facilitated or enabled by technology.  But without a connection between tech integration and teacher evaluation/appraisal, it can be "hit or miss" from one teacher to another.  The really reluctant tech teachers "just don't do technology" and have not been held accountable in any way.  This in turn has made our coaching role at times to be uncomfortable or awkward to say the least.  By including the standards, the DLT now has a formal avenue to work with all of the faculty to improve with their technology integration and to move their students forward to meet the student standards.  Tech integration standards are not meant to be something to hold over the teachers heads or to be used against them.  On the contrary, by having the standards in place, the DLT can use these to help teachers improve their pedagogy and teaching practice, with and through technology.  One big missing puzzle piece . . . found!

As our roles as Co-Directors of Digital Learning is new this year, and is adjunct to our roles as technology coaches, we are in the process of defining and writing our own job description.  The conversation now turned to the other ISTE Standards for Coaches and Administrators, naturally.  We formally adopted the coaches standards years ago and use it to define and evaluate our role as tech coaches.  With our new dual role, we have also decided to adopt the administrators standards for the co-director part of our new position.  We have taken these two sets of standards and have embedded them directly into our job description, to give us an accurate description of what we do, that can also be used for our evaluation.  Think of that?!?  A living job description which is actually usable, and devoid of edu-speak and HR jargon.  Writing our job description is/was an entirely separate project, but realising how it fits into place with these other pieces was serendipitous.  These "big picture" pieces make up the corner pieces of the puzzle and completed the rest of the outside frame.

Digital Yin and Yang

I then guided the conversation back to where it began - with integrating Computational Thinking concepts into K-12 classes.  I am particularly interested in the framework that is being developed by the K12CS.org consortium which includes the CSTA (Computer Science Teachers Association), ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) and Code.org (which is connected to industry and brought us the Hour of Code).  When this framework is finished (summer of 2016, so this is on a fast track), it will provide a framework which schools can use to guide the development of their own curriculum related to Computational Thinking, computer programming and computer science.  Embedding Computational Thinking (and digital citizenship while we are at it) into existing K-12 curriculum is directly connected to a number of the ISTE Student Standards (in both the current and draft versions) and would give us, as the tech coaches, another means to fully integrate technology into lessons/units/programs of inquiry/projects, start conversations with teachers when they are planning, and to guide teachers and students to meeting the ISTE standards.

Implementing Digital Citizenship and Computational Thinking curricula to complement what we are already doing to scaffold students to fulfil the ISTE standards completes the puzzle.  As we have a fully integrated model for technology across the school (meaning we no longer have specific technology classes that all students go to), we have been lacking a structure/framework for teaching students the skills/concepts/abilities to meet the ISTE standards.  With all of these puzzle pieces falling into place, I think we just might have just found what we have been missing in terms of the structure, time, place and buy-in from faculty, that has been absent for years.  Just like magic, all of these pieces came together through one very deep conversation.  I had not really thought about how these things all fit together before, but this conversation really sparked something . . . just one of those aha moments I guess to savour and reflect upon.

Computer Science/Computational Thinking Across the IB Programmes

I have been away from TechXcursions for a little while . . . well, a few months actually.  So it's nice to carve out some time to write some things down.  It's been rather busy the last few months with being on the recruiting hamster wheel + roller coaster ride, plus adapting to my new role as a Co-Director of Digital Learning (with its accompanying shared leadership role, which is a work in progress - that's another posting that I need to reflect on in the near future), and working on the recent IB Diploma combined CS and ITGS curriculum review in The Hague last month.  The external curriculum review is where I got thinking about the worldwide Computer Science/Programming movement and how it fits into the IB Programmes - PYP, MYP, DP, and even CP.

I don't think anyone would argue that there is global interest in incorporating programming into K-12 schools.  Some US school districts and states are developing their own curriculums or mandating programs that reach down into Kindergarten classes.  President Obama just announced a $4 billion USD program to bring "coding" to US schools over the next few years.  Some other countries are ahead of the US and have been working on these kinds of programs for a number of years, including the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Finland, and Canada.  The US movement has garnered a lot of press recently through the third year of the Hour of Code and Obama throwing a lot of money at the problem of the disparity between CS graduation rates and the job market.  The ball is rolling and CS is moving forward, so how do IB world schools get involved?

For the recent curriculum review, this is precisely what I was asked to consider and present my views to the international committee.  Such a big topic was intimidating at first, so I let it sit in the back of my mind and percolate.  Well, that approach didn't entirely work as I really struggled with how to approach and present this important topic.  I ended up writing down what I wanted to say on the flight to Amsterdam, but I still wasn't happy with it.  After talking over the presentations with a friend over dinner (thanks Pilar), things became much clearer for me.  I ended up scrapping most of what I was going to do for the presentation, and rewriting it late that night.  In the end, I no longer had a KeyNote presentation or any visuals, just a whole lot of things to say and connections to be made.  Here is (generally speaking, as there are some things from the curriculum review that I am not permitted to talk about) what I presented . . . 

• given the world wide movement to implement computer science or computer programming or computational thinking or coding in K-12 schools, there is an obvious need to address how CS/CT can be delivered in the IB programs
• from here onwards, where I refer to CS I am essentially taking about Computer Science (CS) and Computational Thinking (CT), which is the broader but more unfamiliar term

• in the Teaching and Learning with Technology Guide (published through the OCC in December 2015) technology is considered as a literacy, and fits into the IB philosophy of multi-literacies; full disclosure here - I worked on the guide with Pilar, so I am pretty close to it and I do want to see it used by IB schools (it really is useful for getting teachers to think more broadly about educational technology in their classrooms at all grade levels)
• just like "we are all language teachers", now we also have to consider that "we are all technology teachers"
• if we consider computer science or computational thinking across the IB Continuum, both are inherently tied to all three aspects of the AID lens - Agency, Information (or Insight), and Design (from the Teaching and Learning with Technology Guide)

The AID lens - from 

• CS/CT is an essential component of technology literacy, which people are now realising (I believe this is one of the driving forces behind the worldwide programming movement)
• many K-12 schools have moved to 1:1 laptop programs and have adopted an integrated approach to teaching technology skills, so there are no longer any specific tech-related courses that all students take, particularly in the elementary grades
• embedding CS into each of IB programmes can be done through the application of the AID lens to existing school programs/units of inquiry/projects/lessons, which in turn means integrating and embedding CS concepts into existing curriculum . . . but how and when do we do that?
• right now, there is a consortium which is working to develop a CS framework to guide schools to bring computer science and computational thinking into K-12 schools
• this work has already begun, and is being driven by the Association of Computing Machinery ACM, the Computer Science Teachers Association CSTA, and by Code.org (who have brought us the Hour of Code and is connected to industry)
• K12CS.org hopes to have standards and a framework released by summer 2016, which can be adopted and used by schools, with exit computing standards for grades 2, 5, 8, 12 (these do not fit very well with the PYP, MYP and DP programmes but this work will be important to watch and connect with)

I think the keys to bringing in K-12 Computer Science and Computational Thinking concepts into the IB Programmes, hinges on three factors:

1) awareness/exposure with CS/CT principles to teachers - many teachers (especially of the younger grades) believe that programming is only for older students and is beyond their teaching ability and the capability of their students; essentially they are afraid of it; this is beginning to change with movements such as the Hour of Code and national or state computing programs that are being developed that reach down to Kindergarten - as these gain traction and attention, more and more teachers will be exposed to computational thinking concepts; computational thinking is the broader term that includes programming and computer science, as well as other thinking models such as algorithmic thinking, logical thinking and procedural thinking; what a lot of people do not realise is how the principles of computational thinking can be applied and used in all areas and disciplines of study

2) a framework such as what K12CS.org is developing, can be adopted and moulded to fit into existing programs and curriculum, and used to guide teachers at all grade levels; it is not about creating and adding in a new curriculum for computing; the approach has to be to embed CS principles into the existing curriculum by teaching topics/lessons/units of inquiry in different ways and using different approaches, but to reach the same learning objectives

For example, in the PYP, imagine you are working on a Unit of Inquiry which has to do with the environment and weather; as part of the unit you are considering what happens in winter and how snow is formed; you could engage students with exploring the geometry of snow flakes, using the Frozen tutorial from the Hour of Code, while at the same time they are working on algorithmic thinking, angles and geometry, exploring looping structures, programming and problem solving; I would much rather have students explore creating mathematically correct snowflakes of their own design through the Frozen princesses, then cutting out geometrically incorrect square snowflakes from paper to stick in the windows . . . we have all seen these, right?

 

3) training and education - being exposed to CS/CT concepts and having a framework as a guide is not enough, teachers need to be trained in how to integrate and embed these concepts into their classroom and current programs; perhaps this can be introduced into Level 2-3 IB trainings or specialized CS/CT integration workshops can be developed?  for schools with integrated technology programs, it would fall on the tech integrator/coach, or curriculum coordinator, or team leader to be well versed in computational thinking concepts so that they can guide and connect these concepts with the existing curriculum

So what would this look like across the IB Programs?

• in the PYP, CS/CT has to be integrated into the existing units of inquiry and the existing curriculum at schools; perhaps this is best done through hands-on digital tools (like Scratch), robotics, maker spaces, and online interactive tutorials (like the Frozen princesses)
• in the MYP, programming skills can be developed through the Design course and further developed by continuing to embed/integrate CT concepts into the core course areas; broader CS/CT concepts could perhaps be integrated into multidisciplinary projects or explored in depth through the Personal Project; furthermore, a pathway to connect CS development through Design to feed into the Diploma CS course needs to be articulated; back in the days of MYP CT and DT, I did just that by creating a CS rich option in G10 for students which fed into CS (my CS classes tripled the next year and had a number of girls in it, whereas I had only 1 girl complete AP/IB CS in the previous decade - creating pathways really does work)
• in the DP, we of course already have Computer Science; my personal opinion is that the current course is too broad and shallow, and allows schools/students to take the course but do very little programming, which is the heart of CS, and it does not resemble what is done in first year university CS courses; 
• to address this problem in DP CS (which I have written about before here and here), if I were in charge I would do the following:

A) move CS back to the Mathematics group, and have schools offer it as a second math course (as it does not fit with both the Nature of Science and Design) OR keep it in Sciences and develop the Nature of Computing/Programming OR change it into a multidisciplinary subject spanning groups 4-5 as CS has always suffered from being scheduled against group 6 subjects (not sure if this solution would help at all though as CS would still be competing against the Arts and students taking two Sciences/Humanities courses for enrolment numbers) 

B) revert the CS syllabus back to be focussed on programming and using a prescribed language or two (much like what APCS has maintained over the years with Java) 

C) combine the IA and Case Study (or just the Case Study) to work with and expand upon a given large scale program, plus allow students to work in small groups/teams and figure out new ways to assess this kind of project; furthermore, "pairs programming" and other group projects should be encouraged for classwork over the two year course

• lastly, in the Careers Program I believe the courses in the DP would guide what this looks like and the options available; students taking a new programming-centric CS course like what I suggest above, would be better suited to completing work terms in industry; work placements in industry in some parts of the world or for some international school students would be very challenging if not impossible though; back home in Canada, we had a G10 work experience program and my most successful placements were with EA Sports, Digipen (school for computer animation and game programming) and Nintendo (through Digipen); this program in turn helped my students move into university CS programs or take two year certifications more directly aligned with their passions and interests - this is what we want isn't it?  

I think there is a roadmap in here for how IB world schools can engage with Computer Science and Computational Thinking from K-12.  I am going to start working on this now, as we are in the process of applying for PYP and MYP.  What do you think?  Are you an IB school with all three programs?  How are you engaging with the programming movement?