Takeaways and Reflections from Learning 2 Africa

Every year, I get recharged from attending Learning 2.0 - I just want to keep going back.  There's something about the energy, connection and the learning that happens there and beyond that draws me to L2 events, whether they be in Asia or Africa.  Last year, I was very fortunate to be invited to be part of the organising committee for the first L2Africa in Addis Ababa, and also attended (and helped out) with L2Asia in Bangkok.  This year, I continued to help out with L2Africa in Johannesburg (specifically with organising the Cohorts) and will also be working with the crew to launch the first L2Europe in Milan (spring of 2016).  On the first day in Jo'burg, Jeff Utecht called me a Learning2 "junkie" which I don't mind . . . I think it's an apt description of getting my annual (or bi-annual ;-) "fix" for all things ed tech.  Learning 2.0 really make me expand my thinking and makes me hit the reset button every time . . . it gives me the time and space to find balance between my teaching and learning, between work and play, between high tech and low/no tech, and between what's happening at my school and everyone else's.

So what are my takeaways from the second L2Africa?  Here's some of my thoughts:

• Size does matter - this year's L2Africa was almost half the size as last years (or at least it really felt that way).  Part of the reason it felt so much smaller was the enormity of the AISJ campus - beautiful and spread out across a hilltop . . . it offered lots of open spaces for everyone to find their own space (but that impacted on the connections you could build during the breaks, lunches and even the Unconference times).  A secondary reason is due to the higher concentration of AISJ faculty who attended the conference.  Having a higher number of local participants "watered down" the opportunities to connect and share with other teachers from across the region, plus the local faculty often did not participate in the social gatherings and dinners for the conference.  Working and collaborating with other teachers from around the world is a big part of Learning 2.0 - future conferences really need to keep this in mind.
• Having a smaller conference impacts on the conference experience as a whole - a number of tweaks and changes were made to the conference structure and organisation as a result of the lower registration numbers.  The two areas which really stuck out for me were the reduction of Cohort meetings (from 3 down to just 2) and the organisation of the Workshops (increasing the Workshop time slots to 3, but having workshop leaders present twice in order to fill up the time slots).  With the Cohort meetings, only having two of them meant that the first meeting was occupied with getting to know everyone in the Cohort, and getting into some of the group's "burning questions".  The second/final meeting was entirely filled up with "other business" and completing the conference feedback, so it was a bust.  Most of my Cohort were experienced Learning2 folks, so we bonded pretty fast and were able to get down to connecting and sharing - but I know that other Cohorts never really bonded as they did not have the time to do so.  Also, many of the members in my Cohort lamented the missing Cohort meeting on the Friday evening as they got so much out of it last year.  My recommendations here are to keep the three Cohort meetings and lengthen the last one by 30 minutes to provide the extra time needed for completing the conference feedback, while not taking time away from the Cohorts.

• Getting back to the basics of Search - a really started thinking about this while sitting in Jeff Utecht's extended session focussing on teaching students in this age of information overload.  For the last few years, I have been delivering lessons to all G9 students (connected to an English 9 research project) on how search engines and ranking work, how to do more effective searches, and techniques for refining your search.  What became apparent to me sitting in the workshop, is that I really need to go back to the faculty and do all of this work once again with them.  "We are all technology teachers" and effective search techniques is something that we should all be teaching/using/demonstrating/continually reinforcing every year at all grade levels.  "Oh duh!", right?
• Recruiting 2.0 - sitting and talking with Maggie Hos-McGrane from ASBombay about the Global Recruitment Collaborative was enlightening and inspired.  The work that has gone into creating this collaborative and cooperative option which connects the top schools in the world is something that my school needs to tap into.  My school meets all of the qualifications to join the GRC (we offer at least one IB Program, have a 1:1 laptop program, and are looking for innovative international teachers each year) but we have not done so . . . I really need to talk to our new director about this, and Maggie has sent another invitation out already.  This can only benefit the school in the long run by attracting the type of quality and experienced faculty without any additional cost to the school.  Win for the school, and win for the faculty.

• Making a Maker Space - this is a project that has already been started here, which I am not really involved in.  But that doesn't mean that I'm not interested and can't build my knowledge about it.  From my second extended session of the conference, I got a huge insight into how a Maker Space can be built and resourced with simple tools, equipment, and donated stuff (like old children's toys and building blocks or Lego).  All of these resources can make for exciting building/design projects which are open ended yet closed in scope.  In a very short time, our group built a collaborative Rube Goldberg machine in sections, which had to integrate and connect with the other sections to form a working machine with a specific goal.  Not only was this a great collaborative learning and building experience, but it all about the bonding and working as a team (even if we had never met each other before).  All down with simple stuff in hand - no robotics, motors, or digital anything.
• Using Wikipedia - Jeff Utrecht had some great information and writing projects (for HS students) linked to using Wikipedia with students.  Wikipedia is the world's largest collection of data/information, yet many teachers refrain from using it personally and for education.  This anti-wikipedia culture has to change, beginning with educating faculty about how wikipedia is curated and rated for accuracy.  Delving into the rubrics for accuracy and relevance of information is closely tied to citations and authority of sources - aren't these precisely the topics and skills that we want to our students to know and use intimately?  Adding to and correcting Wikipedia entries and using the rubrics provided are great writing exercises which have a world-wide audience, is authentic and meaningful, can be linked to a student's CV and university applications (through their Wikipedia profile and account).  Imagine if you can show on your application that you have contributed to a number of Wikipedia entries on a variety of topics which have been accepted and approved by the world at large and the expert curators?  How powerful would that be?  Instructing my faculty about using Wikipedia in the classroom has always been something that I have done in the past, but now I have more ammunition for moving this forward across the school.

Although this year's version of L2Africa was smaller than the first edition in Addis, it still had its moments and takeaways for me.  The MS/HS Technology Leaders Cohort was great and jumped right into sharing and collaborating - I hope this group keeps in touch through Google+ in the future.  There was a lot of experience in the room, which I hope we can all leverage in the future.  There are a number of takeaways listed above which I need to get working on to implement in the HS here this year . . . so I had better get to work!  Did you attend L2Africa?  Are you planning on going to the first L2Europe in April?  What are your takeaways from Jo'burg or your "burning questions" going into Milan?

Coaching with Mindsets in Mind - Big Takeaways for the Start of a New School Year

Big Takeaways for the Start of a New School Year

Well, the new school year has already gotten underway, but it seems that I am just now coming out of the fog and swirl of activity from the "boom" that marks the first day of classes.  With fall trips behind us, laptop rollouts and MAP testing done and dusted, and classes finally settling into a rhythm, it is time to reflect upon coaching from last year with an eye towards the future . . .

Here are my takeaways and thoughts/extensions for each:

• From my end of year coaching survey, I believe that you can have someone who is a capable or even advanced user/facilitator/integrator of technology in the classroom, who is still in a Fixed Mindset when it comes to educational technology.  They are using/integrating a number of technologies effectively in their classroom, but are very comfortable with what tools they employ and are not open to looking at or experimenting with new tools.  With the train analogy from an earlier post - they are in the lead car but are doing nothing to help move the train forward as a whole, or to lead those in the front of the middle car into the lead car.  They remain siloed and comfortable in what they are doing in their classroom.  Sidebar - this is where the train analogy starts to break down, as the cars represent where a teacher is on the ed tech scale of integration, rather than incorporating their mindset as well (which is perhaps, more important).  So what's the way forward?  Screening for mindset and nudging these types of faculty forward into a Growth mindset through conversations and exposure to new tools which can be specifically employed in their classroom/subject area/discipline can help to shift them into a more collaborative and open stance.  These faculty members might be shifted through an individual conversation or through a conversation with a peer or in their own Personal Learning Network (PLN).  Or perhaps the shift will occur through some "just in time" training that comes up, or through exposure to a new tool or idea during a PD workshop, conference or Speed-Geeking session.  It's hard to identify when or where a shift in mindset will occur with these folks, but seize the opportunity when it arises and turn these folks into teacher-leaders with ed tech.

• Again, from my end of year coaching survey, there are some faculty members who take a passive role when it comes to coaching.  Their stance is that they do not have time to consider new tools or to connect with other teachers in their discipline.  They expect everything to be brought to them for their consumption/consideration where they will passively decide whether it is something worth their time (usually not, or it will be "deferred" until a later time). These faculty members do not engage in the coaching process, are not very self-reflective and are therefore in a Fixed mindset.  They are notoriously hard to reach and to work with, as they would truly rather ignore you as a coach, then actually engage with you to improve teaching and learning.  These folks need to be nudged into a Growth Mindset to engage in the coaching process, which is hard to do.  If they are part of a team (teach a shared course, or are part of a grade level or subject team), then perhaps reaching this particular faculty member is best done through the team.  If their team decides to move forward with a new tool or approach, then they will have to follow along.  The toughest "nut to crack" is the stand-alone teacher who does their own thing and does not really belong to a team (they typically teach all stand-alone classes).  So how do you reach them?  By engaging them in conversation about their classes at every opportunity that presents itself, and by exposing them to new tools along the way.  The Walk-through/Check-ins that I regularly conduct also help with reaching these teachers, as it brings coaching and the conversation directly to them individually and personally.  All of these points of contact will help to nudge them forward, some faster than others of course.

• Working directly with a team of Growth Minded faculty has been very fulfilling professionally for me, as well as for members of the group/team.  This is what I do with the HS Tech Collective, which has grown out of what started as a decision making tech committee, into a collaborative think tank for professional sharing around educational technology.  It is not composed of the most technologically adept or switched on faculty.  The group composition changes each year (there is one only member who goes back to the first year committee, and another who has drifted in and out of the group over the years) and they self-nominate/apply to join the Collective.  The short application acts to screen for mindset, rather than looking at their tech skills or abilities.  By focusing on what people want to learn about and experiment with in their own classrooms, I look for people who are expressly not experts in a particular tool, but are Growth minded towards trying something new and different that they are interested in.  These faculty members have already reflected on their own teaching practice and have self-identified their own need or gap or problem of practice that they want to work on.  Bringing Growth Minded faculty members together around ed tech, to share, collaborate and simply converse with no meeting agenda is transformational for everyone involved, which in turn gets spread back to their departments or co-teachers of shared courses.  Working with and developing the Tech Collective each year has been a game-changer for me as a coach, and is influencing the overall culture of the school as it matures and spreads.  So my takeaway here is simple - keep the Tech Collective going, moving forward, developing and changing the school culture in positive ways.

Coaching with Mindsets in Mind - Part 4

One more story from "On Court"

Now that the school year is finished and I am thinking about the highlights, this past spring season coaching the Varsity Girls Tennis Team stands out in my mind.  Just like in my previous post (Part 3), I can't help but apply my learning about Mindsets to our season, and think about how it relates to by role as a Tech Coach.  Some of what I have been thinking about also stems from reading one of my player's CAS reflections after the season, and her takeaways from playing on the team this year, compared to previous ones.

This year, I had the opportunity to shift over to being the Head Coach for the Varsity Girls when the long-time coach stepped down.  I have not worked with the girls team before, so we started the season with a team meeting so I could get to know the players who were trying out, and so we could talk about what they wanted to set as goals for the season.  It was a long conversation, but the girls had a central theme running through everything - they wanted to feel like a team, look like a team, and act like a team.  Part of this feeling came from last year where they went to the one and only tournament without proper uniforms, and played in boys soccer jerseys which were big, baggy and had numbers on the back.  Very unladylike and not inspiring at all.  At the end of that initial team meeting, we agreed on a few things which included: having proper uniforms, building our team spirit and identity, and supporting each other on and off the court.  This was perfect for me, as these are all things which I try to instill in the sports teams that I coach.  Little did I know that it would lead to endless hours of searching online for women's tennis dresses both locally and abroad, which would eventually impact the cookies on my laptop so that now all of the Google Ads and FB side panels are filled with pictures of the latest tennis dresses . . . ugghhhh!

ASW Varsity Girls Tennis Team 2015 - they wanted tennis dresses to look like a team, so we got them!

Fast forward to the end of the season and the CEESA HS Girls Tennis Tournament which we hosted here in Warsaw.  We had students, parents, teachers, and even some Board members and the new Director drop by to watch some tennis and see how it was going.  I think this was significant as we hosted the tournament off campus at a private tennis club, so people had to trek across town to see them play.  And they played fantastically, winning 3 of the 4 individual events plus taking the CEESA Team Championship for the first time in 6 years.  

Now, you might think that getting tennis dresses for the girls is insignificant but it wasn't - it was huge!  The other coaches and players at the tournament all commented on how great they looked on the first day.  My girls were all talking about how they felt like a team for the first time in years - it was all about the dresses (BTW - no other teams were wearing tennis dresses or even proper women's tennis clothing, and some coaches lamented that they could never get their girls into dresses, let alone skirts - we had a new outfit for day 2 ;-).  

CEESA Varsity Girls Tennis Champions 2015 - sporting their day 2 attire of hot pink tops with black skirts!

When the tournament was over and we were wrapping up the season, the girls talked about a number of things which made it very special for them.  I was surprised at what they came up with too.  They were happy about winning the championship of course, but it was all of the other stuff which stuck in their minds.  It was the team spirit that we had cultivated through the practices and out on display at the tournament that stuck with them.  From team warm-ups, to wearing uniforms, to team meetings, to doing team cheers (nobody does that in tennis, but I do), to supporting one another on and off the court.  One of my players even reflected on how "together" we are as a team even though it is a mainly individual sport, which she has never felt before in 5 years of playing on the school tennis team.  The same player also commented on how much she grew and improved this year, both with her skill level but more importantly with the mental part of the game.  What she wrote about was how her mindset changed over the season, and how looking back, it made all of the difference when she was on court at the tournament.

So what did I learn from this, and how does it apply to being a tech coach?  It all has to do with team building.  Building an effective team has to be an intentional process, and the little things count.  Details matter, having common goals and listening to your team is important - done right, this is how you can shift everyone into a Growth Mindset, to bring them together as a group.  Having a growth minded team working together and challenging one another, can lead to great achievements and breakthroughs - sometimes far beyond expectations.  I am really proud of the girls and what they achieved on court, but even more so with how they came together as a team and what they learned about themselves.  One of my players summed it up in her CAS reflection, with something I was constantly saying throughout the tournament - "One point at a time."  She really has taken this to heart, meaning to never give up, learn from your mistakes, and look to the future for the next opportunity . . . all sure signs of the Growth Mindset.

Coaching with Mindsets in Mind - Part 3

Coaching Lessons Learned . . . on Court

I have been a Tech Coach in title since 2009, but I have been in an integration/mentor/tech PD role in one way or another, for over 20 years.  In my current role as a full time coach I have been studying and reflecting upon cognitive coaching practices, models for tech integration, how to foster innovation and how to affect positive change in a school's culture.  Carol Dweck's research into Mindsets has really hooked me, and has led me to think about my own real life experiences working with and changing students mindset.  A few details in Dweck's book particularly intrigued me, particularly about screening for mindset and being able to put someone into a Growth or Fixed Mindset . . . which got me thinking about if I had personal examples from my own experience.

So let me tell you about some concrete examples and the lessons learned which can be directly applied in the classroom, but which came from a different coaching role . . . as head coach of the Western Academy of Beijing Varsity Badminton Team.

Example #1 

In my first year at WAB, I started a badminton club which met at 7:00 in the morning once a week as that was the only gym time we could get.  We were not a priority at all - some mornings we would arrive and could not use the gym, other mornings we would show up and play without a court or even a net.  At the time, badminton was considered a purely recreational sport within the school, even though it is the national sport of our host country.  But that didn't deter the students who came out to play, who ranged from grades 6-9 - they all just wanted to play and learn.  When the first high school ACAMIS badminton tournament came up in the spring, the club quickly changed into a school team . . . they all wanted to compete . . . even against much older and experienced students!  WAB only went up to G10 that year and my players ranged from G5-9, but we were going to compete against high school teams with players in G9-12 from across China.

So we got organized and started practicing specifically for the different tournament events.  But the rules got changed less than two weeks before the tournament, and we suddenly had to field a mixed doubles pairing.  We hadn't been playing any mixed doubles, so I had to get this figured out quickly.  I took my strongest boys singles player Dom, and then selected a grade 6 girl Hannah, who had a "no fear" attitude and an eagerness to learn, to form our mixed doubles pairing.  I think we only got in three practices with them playing together, learning how to move as a team with the female player controlling the net.  When we went to the tournament, none of the other mixed teams were playing proper mixed doubles style and they could not handle Hannah controlling the net on every point.  Dom was already a very fluid and skilled player, but Hannah had to learn everything about playing mixed style and how to play the net, in a very short period of time.  They dominated the mixed doubles event, were beautiful to watch, went undefeated and were the talk of the tournament.  Nobody could believe that they were in G6 & 9, and had only been playing together for two weeks.

Lesson Learned - Someone with a growth mindset can be moved to do incredible things in a short period of time with hard work, perseverance and a fearless attitude - all signs of a Growth Mindset. And Dweck is right - you can screen people for their mindset to select those who are Growth minded, if you know what to look for.

Hannah is in the back left, and Dom is front and center holding their Mixed Doubles Championship trophy - Go Tigers!

Example #2 

Fast forward a few years to the HS badminton team tryouts.  In walks Mike, a new grade 9 student who has come from a private school in Canada that I know. Mike has a swagger to him, and proceeds to warm up by hitting birds as hard as he could, to show off his prowess and superior skill.  He had been the best badminton player for years at his previous school - nobody could touch him on court because he had too much power.  But I could see a flaw - for all of his power and smooth strokes, he had poor footwork which hampered his game.  I asked him to hit overhead clears from baseline to baseline which he tried to do, but did not have the power.  He had never had to make such a shot before, as nobody else could hit it that deep on him.  But he wasn't in Kansas (or Vancouver) anymore, he was in China!

My approach was simple - I had to first establish a coaching relationship with him in order to break through his shell of bravado.  To jumpstart this process, I appealed to his obvious love of power.  I enticed him with a simple offer/challenge - that I could get him the last 2 meters of distance on his clears in under 5 minutes.  After a moments consideration, he took me up on the challenge.  With some simple coaching on his body positioning and footwork, he started generating more power from his legs and hips.  Pop, pop, pop - he was now hitting the full length of the court.  In about 2 minutes flat, Mike had changed to become a very coachable player and an important part of the team.

Lesson Learned - As Dweck says, you can shift someone from a Fixed to a Growth mindset just by talking to them, and framing things in ways which engages them in learning.  It's all about making connections, building a relationship, and then finding the right hook/challenge/opportunity to draw them in. The moment you have them, is the moment their mindset changed.

China Cup Junior Varsity Championship Team showing off their hardware - Mike is second from the right in the back row

Example #3

What do you get when you put two precocious, bright, MS BFFs on court together?  Either a total disaster or a team with great unrealized potential.  Liz and Monica always wanted to play doubles together since that first year with the club.  At first, they were not complimentary players and were not very good together - all talk and goofing around (after all, they were and still are BFFs).  But over the 5 years playing together they grew stronger as players and teammates, and became my #1 girls doubles pairing.  

One year, we hosted the ACAMIS tournament in Beijing, but finished second to Suzhou - we were close but outclassed in a few areas including girls doubles.  The following year, Liz and Mon lost to the same Suzhou team in the round robin, which bumped them to second place in the girls doubles event.  In the team championships, we were again playing against Suzhou, and girls doubles went so long that it ended up being the deciding match.  Going into that match, Liz and Mon had not ever beaten their rivals.  Rather than delivering a stirring, "let's get pumped up speech" (I'm not that kind of coach), we found a quiet place to talk about their game plan and strategy.  One thing that I love about badminton is that it is a cerebral sport, where you can outwit your opponent and think your way through a match.  

The championship deciding match drew a huge crowd as they were on court for so long. It was full of ups and downs, twists and turns, and changes in the lead.  Suzhou came out strong and won the first game of the best out of three match.  Liz and Mon scrapped and fought to win the second game to tie the match, but fell behind in the third and deciding game.  They dug deep, leaned on each other, clawed to get to a final game tiebreaker, and to eventually win our first of many ACAMIS team championships.  What was I the most proud of? That they thought their way through the match, adapting and changing their game plan as needed to win it in the end.  They talked and communicated on court throughout, and we adjusted to their opponents game during the coaching breaks.

Lesson Learned - Having a growth mindset means learning from your losses, moving forward, and trying again.  Celebrate your failures, don't mourn them.  Learn from them, rather than make excuses.  And having supportive peers around you can make all of the difference.  A growth minded team is much stronger than the sum of its parts, and will take you beyond your setbacks, losses and failures.

That's Liz and Mon on the front-left after our second consecutive ACAMIS Championship - Go Tigers!

It's all about the learning - on the court or in the classroom!  Mindset matters!

Coaching with Mindsets in Mind - Part 2

It's that time of the school year for reflection, which also means surveying the teachers that I work with in order to improve my practise and to better support the faculty in the future.  Over the past few years, I have found the faculty survey process to be enlightening, definitely useful and seriously stressful all at the same time.  As I work primarily with faculty, it is an inherently different process than surveying the students in your class.  I just sent out my tech coach survey and the responses are starting to trickle in - it's a very busy time of year for everyone so I do not expect to get a 100% response rate.  Last year, I received feedback from almost half of the faculty, which I reckon was pretty good.  I have read that with some big schools and universities, that they consider a 1/3 return rate as highly successful.  But I don't think that the previous response rate will be repeated this year, as we have a huge turnover of teachers in the high school - I wonder if the leavers will find the time to do my survey at all, over the myriad of other tasks that must be on their plate right now.

As the first responses come in, I can't help but have a look at the written comments and think about what I can learn from them.  One comment has stuck in my mind (for the last few days ;-) went something like this:

Could you audit a unit in everyone's class and give suggestions about how tech could improve the unit?

Coaching is active and self-reflective, should be initiated by the teacher and focus on the teacher's own pedagogy.

This has really made me think and I have flip-flopped back and forth about whether this suggestion has merit, whether it is very practical or productive, and whether it would even work.  I have gone from "there isn't time to do that", to "how would I choose which unit to audit?", to "this approach could work for some, but not everyone."  To me, there are a number of facets to this suggestion which determine how successful such an approach would be, which include:

• Evaluation - as a tech coach, my role is strictly non-evaluative which means that I cannot/should not randomly audit a lesson or unit and then present my ideas about how it could be changed or improved; unsolicited feedback generally does not go over well with faculty and can sometimes have the opposite effect where the walls go up and doors close; this approach would only work if I was invited in to observe, initiated by the teacher
• Time and Practicality - as I work with about 35 faculty members who teach over 100 different courses across the high school, finding the time to audit whole units from everyone's courses seems to be totally impractical; again, having the teacher identify the unit or lesson in advance would be more practical
• Focus - taking the time to audit a unit of a course without having a specific focus for the observation would not be productive; in order for this approach to be successful, the focus of the observation needs to be identified in advance by the faculty member rather than the coach; furthermore, discussing the focus of the observation in advance would also be important as that could lead to identifying the best lesson or unit to be observed, rather than the other away around
• Mindset - in order for coaching to be effective, the teacher being coached must have a growth mindset and be willing/wanting to improve/update/change/transform their unit, lesson or project . . . if the teacher has a fixed mindset then any suggestions I have for them will likely be met with resistance and defensiveness; I have experienced this before when a teacher has asked for "general feedback and ideas" but is unwilling to even consider trying any of them due to "not having any time", or they "don't really know if it would work", or "maybe next year when they do this project again".

I recently read Carol Dweck's "Mindset - the New Psychology of Success" and have been reflecting on how people's mindset impacts on my work, and how I can apply her research to working with faculty.  Framing this faculty member's comment in Dweck's work makes me think that this suggestion has some positive elements which can be extracted and used next year.  Dweck says that you can screen for mindset, to look for those who are growth minded.  Applied here, I should not use a "one-size fits all" approach and try to audit a unit from everyone's classes - that just would not work.  Instead, I should make a bigger effort to actively ask faculty to invite me into a lesson or to audit a unit or to plan a project, in order to find the growth minded.  I do this already, but perhaps this person never took me up on the offer.  Perhaps being more forward with this and providing a little more encouragement would tip the scales for this person and for others as well.  By screening for mindset, I would also be able to identify the units/lessons/projects that the faculty member wants to work on and focus on the specific aspects that they want to improve upon.  

With respect to educational technology, do you have a Fixed or Growth Mindset?
Are you set in your pedagogy, constantly recycling lessons and units from one year to the next?

Dweck also talks about putting someone into a Growth Mindset, just by talking with them.  Growth minded teachers are reflective and are looking to improve their pedagogy/approach/delivery, rather than passively waiting for someone to tell them what and where to improve.  Waiting for someone to tell you what to do is a clear sign of a Fixed Mindset which made me think at first that this comment was coming from such a faculty member.  On further reflection and application of Dweck's ideas, I think this person could be in the middle of the continuum between Growth Minded and Fixed Minded, and just needs a little nudge to get to across the fence.  For the teacher who is open to me auditing a unit or lesson in their class, but does not have a focal point in mind already, perhaps they can be moved into a Growth Mindset simply through a professional planning conversation.

So my takeaways from this comment are to give some more nudges and opportunities to the faculty, which I can easily do when I touch-base with everyone on my regular Walkthroughs.  When I check-in with them I will now extend my initial ask "Is there a lesson/unit/project that you would like my help to plan" to include "or which you would like me to sit in on to give you feedforward and ideas?"  I think this added nudge will help to engage some of the faculty who don't want to take the time or risk to plan a lesson/unit/project with me, but are willing to invite me into a lesson(s) where they choose what they want me to focus on for collecting data and providing feedforward (note that I purposefully use feedforward here based on this article by Joe Hirsch for Edutopia which explains how feedforward is looking for positive change in the future).  It will also help me to screen for the Growth Minded teachers who just need a little encouragement to take the next step forward with tech coaching to improve their teaching practice.  Even small steps forward will eventually get you to where you are going in the end!

Coaching with Mindsets in Mind - Part 1

I have been reading Carol Dweck's "Mindset - the New Psychology of Success" and have been thinking about how it connects with my role as a tech coach.  In various coaching workshops, two "models" have come up which classify my clientele (i.e. the faculty that I work with) into different groups - the Train Model and the Garden Model (as I call it, for lack of a better name).  

In the Train Model, you can envision the faculty as being in one of three cars of the ed tech train, which is constantly in motion moving down the tracks.  There could be spur-lines that branch off of the main tracks, but everyone is generally moving in the same direction.  The first car contains the early adopters, the techies, and the gurus who are constantly exploring new ed tech tools and how they can be employed in their classrooms.  The last/third car has the tech sceptics, the tech-phobics and those teachers who use the minimal amount of technology or no technology at all when it comes to conducting their lessons.  In the middle car are most of your faculty, who use some technology in their classrooms and generally stick to what they know and have used before.  In this model, the early adopters are leading the way, and the sceptics are trying to slow the whole train down.  As a tech coach, we talk about focusing on the middle car to try and expose them to new ed tech tools, and to move them up into the lead car.  By moving the middle group ahead, others in the middle group and hopefully some of the sceptics in the caboose will be drawn along with them.

In the Garden Model, you can envision two groups - the plants and the rocks.  I know this may sound derogatory but I don't think it was ever meant to be.  As a tech coach, I have been told that "you have to feed the hungry" which means nurturing and fertilising the plants in the group so that they thrive and grow.  At the same time, I have also had conversations about "always remembering to water the rocks", meaning that I have to work with everyone on staff (which is very true) no matter where they are on the ed tech spectrum, or where they are in the garden.  With this model, it focuses more on working with everyone, rather than spending most of your time working with the group in the middle (plants that need a little more nurturing and care ;-).

So which model is better?  Which model better describes what we as coaches should be doing?  Dweck's "Mindset" has given me a new perspective on these two models and how they can be blended together.  When you apply mindsets to the Train Model, the first car is clearly the Growth Minded - always taking risks, trying new things out, constantly learning and reflecting.  The last car is the Fixed Minded - wanting to keep things static and comfortable, not believing that they can learn new things, and simply feeling overwhelmed by all things technology (they feel that it is beyond their ability to learn these new tools).  So what about the middle car?  People here are in the middle of the mindsets spectrum, somewhere near the border between Growth and Fixed.  Dweck talks about screening for mindset and working with those people to move them forward - this would mean looking for the people nearer to the front of the second car.  Dweck also talks about putting people into a Growth Mindset simply by talking to them or putting them in a specific situation - this means finding the people in the middle of the second car and nudging them forward by connecting with them, exposing them to new tools, and putting ed tech into contexts that they can relate to (such as demonstrating a tool in a class which they can observe and see for themselves).  Working with those people in the middle car does make sense, as you are trying to pull the trailing car along with the rest of the train.

Dweck's Mindsets can also be applied to the Garden Model in the same way.  Plants = Growth and Rocks = Fixed (sorry, no pun intended ;-).  The parallels are obvious here, I think.  "Feeding the hungry" refers to working with the Growth Minded, which Dweck explains can achieve great results in a very short amount of time, reflect and move off in new directions, and create new innovations.  "Watering the rocks" refers to creating opportunities and experiences which serve to shift people's mindset to Growth, even temporarily, so that they can learn and move forward . . . one small step at a time.  When you apply mindsets to the Garden Model, coaches need to be working with everyone across the spectrum and differentiating how we work with people according to their mindset rather than their tech abilities and skill set.  If you think ablaut it, this really makes sense as you can be far along the ed tech spectrum, but still have a Fixed Mindset - this is the teacher who is very comfortable with the ed tech that they employ in their class and good at it, but unwilling to consider new tools as they don't have the time.  

So which model is best?  Personally, the Mindsets Model really appeals to me and makes sense.  The more that I think about it, the more instances come to mind which fit Dweck's model or are explained by Dweck's thinking.  Moving forward myself, I will continue to write a few more posts about Mindsets and how it connects with my role as a tech coach and with my work in educational technology.  If you haven't read "Mindset" yet, you really should - even if you are not a coach yourself . . . it has totally changed my thinking.

Things That Must Not Be Forgotten - Google Lit Trip Launch

Just a Short Jaunt to China . . . in the 1930's . . .

It's finally finished and published . . . my Google Lit Trip to go with my father's memoir "Things That Must Not Be Forgotten - A childhood in wartime China" by Michael David Kwan.

It has been over a year since I attended the Google Teachers Academy in Stockholm (GTA SWE 13) and set out as part of my Googley project to build a GLT to go with my father's book.  It has been a long journey that involved a lot of digging into the past, both physically and digitally (you can read more about my journey in a previous posting here).  This is just to announce that the GLT has been published and released online, and that further details and background information can also be found at the accompanying Site that I built here.  Enjoy!

Building Tech Integration in IB Diploma Courses

A friend in the US recently asked me for some help with how to get started with integrating technology in a school which offers the IB Diploma Program.  She observed that the faculty were very well versed in the IB Diploma and were very experienced teaching their courses, but there was a lot of reluctance with integrating technology in their classes.  She was looking for some examples, particularly in Math and Science, for how teachers are integrating technology in Diploma courses, and was also looking for some recommendations for US-based trainers who might help to move the school forward.  My response to her ended up being pretty long and detailed, and seemed worthy of posting it here for others to read and take ideas from.  So here's most of what I wrote . . .

To get to your question about integrating technology into the IB Diploma, you are correct in your observations about some teachers being very reluctant to consider technology in their classrooms, especially when it comes to teaching IB Diploma courses.  I treat all of the HS faculty as specialists in their fields because they are experts, and with a school the size of ASW (the HS is about 275 students G9-12) the faculty all teach predominantly stand-alone courses (there are very few courses in the HS let alone the DP, that are shared between 2-3 teachers).  HS faculty often cite not having the time to integrate technology, often talk about the deep and wide curriculum to get through, or intimate that they just don't see how something might be used in their course.  Seeing some piece of technology or a tool used within the context of a specific class can really tip the balance here, but finding those examples or the people who are actively "doing it" is the challenge.  Moving people along is tough when they don't want to move, so employing peer coaches/tech leaders within your school, getting faculty to expand their professional network to connect with people outside of their school, and exposing your staff to new ideas/tools/pedagogy has worked for me here (but it is a slow process).  One of the parts of all of this that we continue to struggle with is whether faculty "have to integrate technology" rather than just use it in class, as technology integration is not connected with teacher evaluation in any way.  As a result, we are a school which is technology rich and has lots of great things going on, but we still have teachers who actively resist tech in their classrooms because "they are doing just fine without it, and their IB DP scores are pretty good." 

With all of that in mind, here are some things/tools/ideas/projects/links for stuff that we are doing here at ASW in IB DP courses, which have grown out of our 1:1 Laptop Program (mostly since I changed our program to Macs three years ago).  Much of this has developed from encouraging teachers to allow students to demonstrate/show/share their understanding in more creative ways using digital tools.  Also note that I have tried to list things here which are beyond stuff which would fall within using Moodle or GAfE for communication/collaboration/organisation:

• Teachers flipping their classroom by creating their own short instructional videos (Visual Arts, Economics, Math) or by using online resources with students (Khan Academy)

• Digital audio recording and podcasting/vodcasting for Languages

• Using digital simulations for abstract concepts or experiments (Explore Learning gizmos for Math and the Sciences)

• Students creating video products which demonstrate their learning/understanding in creative ways, such as for their Group 4 Project, using green screens for making History news casts from WWI, creating short visual summaries for acts from a play or chapters from a novel, or creating short animations to demonstrate/summarise a concept or process

• Apps and other specialised features for supporting EAL and Learning Support students (i.e. OpenDyslexic font and browser plug-in, or using text to speech features)

• Providing online databases for students to access scholarly journals and other peer reviewed research

• Connecting and collaborating with experts/students/classes remotely (i.e. our G10 English classes worked with classes in Colorado - https://ahsthisibelieve.wikispaces.com, and our History classes recently participated in some online talks with historians from the UK)

• Graphing calculator simulator (Ti-Smartview) for better instruction and classroom use of the graphing calculators for Math

• Using an iPad with a fine-tip stylus as both a document camera and as an annotation device (instead of an interactive whiteboard)

• Pixton for creating graphical/cartoon summaries which demonstrate a student's understanding (this has been used with Languages and the Sciences very successfully)

• Online and free apps as resources (i.e. interactive unit circle for introductory trigonometry - http://www.touchmathematics.org/topics/trigonometry, Quia.com for online quizzes and review, Videonot.es for annotating online videos, Piktochart for creating infographics, World Newspaper Map - http://newspapermap.com/ for comparing different perspectives on world/current events)

• Using Google Sites to document their CAS projects - all G11-12 students are now doing this, as of this year

• Using Google Docs to document the research process as G11 gets started with their Extended Essay, which can be shared with the IB DP Coord, HS Librarian and their EE Supervisor

• ToK Google Site collection/aggregator using Scoop.it for current events and articles pertaining to different ways of thinking

This list has a few things which all IB DP students are doing/using, and I hope there's enough Math and Science stuff here to get you started.  In terms of an American trainer that might be good for you, we brought in Tom Daccord (http://edtechteacher.org/team/tom/) and also sent some of our new staff to his summer institutes in Boston over the years, which have been very good.  This helped to jump start some of the faculty, to get the ball rolling.

Another project that I have been working on with the IB has been the "Role of Technology in the IB".  A pre-publication version of the guide is currently available on the OCC.  In addition, some of us who were part of the small working group in the summer also presented a mock-up of the tech integration "AID lens" at the recent ECIS ICT conference in Munich.  A copy of our presentation "Thinking More Deeply about the Role of Technology Integration in the IB Programmes" is here, and the short video that has been prepared by the IB is shown below:

What is important to consider with all of this, is that some IB Diploma teachers are reluctant to engage with technology integration as they do not see how to incorporate technology into their lessons or units, and they do not have the time to devote to learning and using some new tools.  But tech integration shouldn't be focused on just tools - it should have a broader view of technology and the integration of technology.  The more I think about the "AID lens", the more I like it, as it has this broader view of tech integration leading towards tech literacy.

Remember those reluctant teachers who don't use any technology in their class, at all?  Are they really not doing anything for tech integration and building technology literacy?  Depends on how you measure or look at it.  Take for example, two History teachers who have assigned a research project focussed on different aspects of WWI.  Teacher A has made the final product a 2000 word essay, while Teacher B wants students to be creative and produce a short video using a green screen as a news cast from the trenches.  With the SAMR model, does the essay extend into the transformative levels, or does the news cast video?  Many people see the video project as incorporating more tech, so it must be higher up the SAMR scale.  Through the "AID lens", both projects come out about even as they both contain essential elements of Agency (ways of Being), Information (ways of Knowing) and Design (ways of Doing).  Both projects are building tech literacy, just with different student products.  Don't get me wrong here, I am not against the SAMR model (it certainly has its uses and it is really good for helping teachers think about tech integration).  But how do you measure if something is transformative?  Why would the video project be better for student learning?  Just because it's flashier?

I have been struggling with this for awhile now, but I am beginning to see how the "AID lens" brings a different perspective into play (which I think is worth considering).  Have a look at the "AID lens" and think about how it could be used in curriculum planning . . . what do you think?

Some after thoughts . . . here are a few more IB applicable tech tools to consider:

• Desmos online graphing calculator is wickedly good and you can get it on your iPad too
• Wolfram Alpha - online computational knowledge engine is very good at math . . . try entering an equation into it and getting it to solve it for you . . . and then walk through the steps for solving the equation one by one . . . 

Back to the Future . . . or at least the 1980's

Today (thanks to a colleague), I came across an interesting article from OpenCulture.com which included a series of short videos from the BBC Radio 4 and The Open University.  The collection featured in this article is titled "Has Technology Changed Us?" and includes 4 short animations narrated by Gillian Anderson (from cult tv show fame).  The X-Files link immediately grabbed my attention (I have two personal connections with the tv show, but those are different stories ;-), as did the title of the series.  These are well worth taking the few minutes to watch them in order, but the one that really spurred me to share is the first episode titled "Rewiring the Brain" (embedded below).

With our 1:1 Laptop Program, there is a lot of talk/discussion/inquiry/angst surrounding screen time, computer/gaming addiction, distractions, finding balance, multi-tasking and a general decline in student attention spans.  After watching this video this morning, I think it's time to revisit hosting an Unplugged Day in the HS again.  I did this two years ago (see the original blog posting here as well as the follow-up reflection posting here and a second reflection here) with mixed results, but it is time to come back to this idea of going without technology for a day to better understand its impact on our daily life, and how deep our "need to be connected" runs.  With HS students, I think discussions about total screen time in a day, and making home agreements about computer usage come into direct conflict with the realities of school life and the curricular requirements of programs like the IB DP.  My experience has been that some of our students today have little or no awareness of just how wired they really are, and unplugging them from the web/net is the only way to give them some perspective.

After my first Unplugged Day, I really thought that this is something that we all need to do as a community - both teachers and students across the board.  We all need to seek balance in our lives, especially when it comes to our technology use.  Some people are better at it than others, and some people are totally addicted to their devices and don't even know it.  One of my best friends is completely attached to his mobile (he frequently checks it while you are actively engaged in a conversation, or when eating a meal) but seemingly has no idea about how others perceive his mobile addiction.  How many others are totally addicted to their devices and don't even know it?

Last year and this year (right now during the month of March, actually), I have challenged students to participate in the UNICEF World TAP Project where people can raise clean drinking water for the needy by not using their mobile phones (click here to see my blog posting on this project too).  This project has been pretty successful within the school, but again, has been limited to those students and teachers who elect to engage with it and learn about themselves.  It needs to be pushed out to the entire community and done together, whether they think they need it or not.  So it's time to go back to 1984 but as an entire HS this time.

I just had an initial conversation  with my principal about doing a school-wide Unplugged Day either in April or May this year, and he is all for it.  After talking through the possibilities for the day, we decided that there are a number of learning outcomes associated with this project that will make it bigger and better, such as:

• Connecting the day to the IB Learner Profile, where April for us focuses on "Thinkers" (which is a perfect fit with "We use critical and creative thinking skills to analyse and take responsible action on complex problems.") 
• Digital Citizenship to generate staff/student self-awareness of their own tech usage
• Make this into a school wide Spirit Day, including an 80's dress-up, Unplugged Coffee House lunch time performances, Advisory competition, and other themed "touches" to give it life and to make it fun
• Get student leadership involved to make this into a CAS project
• Most importantly - have everyone in the school participate this time . . . we are all in this together!  Connect and reflect on the process through grade level Advisory classes.

Getting everyone on-board is the next step, so I had better get started with the planning and communication with the staff . . . I hope a month is enough advanced notice!  Or we will have to rebrand it as "1985 on 8/5" and move it to May . . . but that would leave out the seniors as they will be in the middle of exams.  Hope it doesn't come to that!  Have you ever hosted an Unplugged or Blackout Day in your school?  What made it successful?  What made it flop?  What kinds of learning and self-reflection took place as a result?

Taking the Long Way Home - Building a Google Lit Trip

When I joined the ranks of Google Certified Teachers over a year ago (GTA SWE 2013), part of my Google Project that I embarked upon was to build a Google Lit Trip . . . from scratch . . . to go with my father's award winning memoir "Things That Must Not Be Forgotten - A Childhood in Wartime China" by Michael David Kwan.  My deadline for completing this project actually passed by two months ago (as I gave myself a year to build it) but in a sense I did make my original deadline . . . kinda/sort of.   Let me explain . . . I began work on the GLT last spring and then put everything on hold until the summer so I could gather more information and old photos at home in Canada.  Then, in the fall, I came back to the project and inserted everything that my summer research had uncovered, and continued my research to try and find the locations of some important places in the book. I was able to just meet my Christmas deadline, but little did I know that I was not even close to being truly finished with the construction process.

What I had not accounted for in the entire process was the amount of work that was required to get it into a presentable state . . . I made a serious mistake here in underestimating the level of detail that was required and the amount of writing that had to be done!

I had met Jerome Burg (the father of Google Lit Trips) before at a Google Geo event, so I got in touch with him about getting my GLT published on his official Google Lit Trips website.  Jerome was very receptive to helping me develop my GLT, and was really excited about including historical non-fiction on his website, especially one set in China.  Jerome's editorial work and feedback was fantastic.  He combed through what I had produced and really pushed me to think about the overall experience of the reader and the fact that I was really telling two stories in the Lit Trip - both my father's story from the book and my own story of discovery as I researched and located different sites and information about my family.  With Jerome's extensive feedback in hand (and burning a hole in my brain with each passing day), I decided to tackle everything over the long winter holiday . . . which never happened (getting the work done, that is ;-).

Six weeks later, I have reworked most of what I had previously produced, formatting and organising everything according to Jerome's guidelines and suggestions, rewriting practically everything to tell my own story with links and ties to my father's story, and taking the time to build a supporting Google Site.  Now, I think I finally have a product that can be distributed and used by others which serves to tell my story of discovery, enhance the reading experience of "Things", and to provide the reader with visuals and background for the places in my father's book.  I really hope that Jerome likes what I have created and that it is now in a publishable state - I just sent it off to him to peruse, poke and prod . . . fingers crossed!

My father David Kwan, with my grandfather John YL Kwan (circa 1938)

Lessons learned and take-aways from building a Google Lit Trip

• Completing the research and gathering all of the extra resources is only the beginning - the creation/writing process takes even more time
• Conducting real-life, hands-on research with primary sources is tough, challenging and frustrating - trying to piece together information from old family photographs, or coming to terms with place names which have changed over time or are written differently, is very time consuming
• Patience is a virtue - you will need a lot of it and you will be tested
• You never know what surprises your research will uncover - now I know that I am 1/4 Serbian?!?, whereas before I thought I was part "white Russian" or Swiss (see my accompanying GLT website for the details of how I came to this realisation)
• Brush up on your basic HTML coding skills - these will come in handy as you build information into Google Earth
• As a teacher, I think having students build Google Lit Trips is not a simple endeavour to be undertaken lightly - perhaps teams of students could collaboratively build a GLT, or it could be undertaken as a major research project, or a tool like Google Tour Builder could be used to create a simpler Lit-Trip-like experience
• Building a GLT will take far longer than you ever thought - double or triple your original time estimate
• Think about where you will store online extras like photos and documents which will be part of your GLT - I used a Google Site to house these items
• Working with historical sites which date back to before the satellite imagery contained in Google Earth takes some imagination and serious sleuthing powers
• If you can find historical maps (which are drawn reasonably close to scale) that you can use as overlays in Google Earth, this adds a very rich and interesting dimension to the Lit Trip experience - but you will need that abundance of patience to get them to sit right, on top of the satellite imagery!
• Creating a resource like this which is close to your heart is very rewarding in the end - building and sharing this kind of resource is one of the reasons we are teachers, right?  And I think this kind of thing is seriously related to your Computing Karma . . .

Have you ever created a Google Lit Trip or tried to build one?  What was your experience like?

Author - Michael David Kwan
Photo by Russel Kwan

This is for you Dad!
And for everyone reading, studying or who has been touched by your book.

Takeaways from a Short Jaunt to HEL and back

A few weeks ago, I jumped on the opportunity to go to Helsinki to attend a workshop on Collaboration and Peer Observation with expert Fran Prolman.  The one-day workshop was being held at the International School of Helsinki (their entire faculty was attending) and sponsored by CEESA (which made it free for me to attend, thank you very much!).  We had a small crew from Warsaw there, and there were other teachers from Krakow and Riga as well.

Did you know . . . HEL is art deco?

My school brought in Fran this past fall, to work with our faculty on team building and protocols for having those "difficult conversations".  Having worked with Fran before, I knew that this would be something worth going to.  I really like Fran's straight-ahead, tell-it-like-it-is style of presenting, and how she encourages everyone to engage in professional conversations . . . even when they are difficult ones to have.  As I was going to HEL, I had a few "burning questions" (sorry, own intended ;-) in mind for Fran to answer about what I have been doing as a Tech Coach with conducting regular Tech Walkthroughs.

As we progressed through the workshop and got into the meat of Peer Observations, I began to wonder about how my Walkthroughs fit in with the model that she was presenting.  To help build a culture of collaboration in a school, having the trust and shared goals in place first, for Peer Observations to take place, are a given.  Peer Observations should be initiated by the observee (yeah, I know this is not actually a word but I am going to use it anyway), and they should direct the observer on the areas/topics they want data and feedback on, and the observations are typically longer or even over a period of time.

Storm clouds in HEL

So how do Walkthroughs fit in?  That was my new "burning question" that immediately sprang to mind, which Fran answered for me.  She told me that my tech walkthroughs were perfectly fine to do, and serve a different purpose than the more formal peer observations.  Although the observees are not initiating the walkthrough and are not directing what I am observing, they do know in advance why I am there and what I am looking at (technology integration in the HS).  Because the faculty know this in advance and expect me to regularly drop by their class at random times for a few minutes, my Tech Walkthroughs are productive and useful.  They have a clear purpose and understood parameters, the most important of which is that I am visiting their classroom in a non-evaluative role.  And when the walkthrough turns into a check-in with the teacher (because there is no class), then it is still time well spent through making connections with faculty, building currency, and bringing coaching/support directly to them.

Once I had confirmed with Fran that conducting regular walkthroughs as a tech coach was a good practice, I then pressed on with my original "burning questions" - Should I encourage other faculty to come along on walkthroughs in order to see other people's classes in action?  When I observe something in a class where I could suggest a change of approach/delivery/tools, should I give that unsolicited feedback to the teacher?

Yes, it does snow in HEL!  And they do like the colour red!

For the first question, I have been trying to get other faculty members to come with me on a walkthrough but I have not had anyone take me up on it.  Fran set me straight on this though - this will not work as anyone's class that we walked into will change the dynamic of the walkthrough.  In essence, the observee knows why I am there and what I am observing, but they don't know what someone else will focus on or what their goals for being there are.  This is where the Peer Observation model comes into play, where the observee directs the observer in what jot look for, collect data and give feedback on.  Fran cut quickly to the root of why I shouldn't do this and why it wouldn't be productive, so I will no longer suggest or pursue doing this and I now know why.

For my second question, it is something that I have been wondering about - giving unsolicited feedback or suggestions to a teacher about something observed in their lesson.  Fran's basic direction here is "don't do it".  Again, relating back to the Peer Observation model, the observee needs to choose what they want to learn about in their class, and direct the observer in what data to collect and what they want feedback on.  Giving unsolicited feedback can be perilous - Fran's advice here was to tread lightly or not at all.  If you really have to provide some feedback on what you observed in someone's classroom, then you must guide the teacher to think about and reflect upon what you observed.  Do not judge, do not evaluate, do not interrogate, do not ask "why" and do not make suggestions on what to do to "correct" the issue.  All you can do is gently/collegially/professionally guide the teacher to reflect on what happened and to come to their own conclusions about what the problems & solutions might be.  Or just don't say anything at all . . . after all, as a Tech Coach I am not there to evaluate, but to support and coach.

These are my personal takeaways (there were more, but more specific to my school rather than for my role) from a short, one-day focused workshop with Fran Prolman.  Each of these items has a direct impact on my daily coaching practice and how I work with my faculty - that's a big win in my books!  It's a great feeling coming home from a conference experience with your "burning questions" extinguished, and with practical advice which you can implement immediately . . . well worth the trip to HEL and back.

Getting back into teaching Computer Science

This year's Hour of Code event has long since passed, but I am still feeling its effects in my classroom and across the school.  In December just before our long winter break, I held a number of HoC events in the HS, which included a couple of student after school coding hours and even introducing parents to coding.  At the end of the second student event, a number of students hung around to talk about programming, what they should do if they wanted to pursue computer science in their post-secondary studies, and how they could engage in more programming . . . but in a more academic setting beyond what the HoC tutorials offer.

So the Coding Club was born right there on the spot - gestation time . . . about two minutes, tops.  The students suggested it themselves and all agreed that it would be something that they would like to do and would commit to, one day a week after school.  They even would take on advertising the new club and seeking out other like-minded students who wanted to engage with programming in a deeper way.

As I phased out CS in my current school a few years ago, I have not been teaching programming for the first time in about 25 years . . . and I have missed it!  From talking to students, from the responses I have had for programming/CS sessions I have done at Career's Night, and from students who have graduated and gone on to study CS without having taken a single course here, I know that there is a need and hole in our program.  Don't get me wrong - I still think that the new IB DP CS curriculum leaves much to be desired and is not a good fit for our school, so that is not the solution.  Apparently, much of the world agrees with me as the numbers of students writing the IB DP CS exam last May with the new curriculum dropped below 1000 (worldwide) - apparently an all time low.  At my school, we are looking at reforming and changing the HS program to give students more opportunities to engage with programming, computer science, the Maker movement and design.  It will not only take time and energy, but will also require a change in staffing - parts of our HS program is governed by who is on staff and what they are willing and able to teach.

In the meantime, forming a club and getting students engaged in a fun yet academic setting is a good start.  And it has been really fun for me.  I have taken the best parts out of what I used to teach in IB DP CS and AP CS, to work with the club.  Students are committed to their learning and discovery, and devote as much time towards programming as they are comfortable.  There's no grades, no exams, no class notes, no big projects with due dates . . . just a lot of learning, discussion and collaborative exploration.  When we first started talking about forming a club that was more academic in nature, I suggested that we could start with laying a foundation that we could build upon, which would serve them well as they got into programming with a compiled language . . . everyone enthusiastically agreed so that's where we started.

Our plan so far has been really fun - my club don't want to go home each week, and are truly apologetic when they have to miss a club meeting.  What we have done so far, and where we are going, is as follows:

• Why binary?, parts of the computer, storage mediums
• Data representation, file types, how stuff works and how stuff is made
• Logic circuits, Boolean logic, simple computational logic
• Types of programming languages, how the CPU works, knob and switch computing
• 3D Animation and programming using Alice3D
• Programming in Java using Greenfoot and BlueJ
• Greeps programming competition
• CAS project - teaching MS Tech Club students programming and other content above

We are only meeting once a week for about an hour, until the end of the year, so I think this will keep us busy!  It has been really energising to be teaching programming again . . . the club has shown me that I do miss working closely with this kind of student, so this really feels "right"!  So, what is your school doing for teaching programming and computer science?  Have you phased out IB DP CS with its move into Group 4 for experimental sciences?  Are you considering offering AP CS or another course instead?