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?

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.