Inquiry Based Teaching and Learning..... as I see it

Inquiry Based Learning

How I understand it.

I am best in stories. So here it goes.

My mother recently came back from a trip to Australia, and brought me a boomerang.  It came with a tri-folded one page pamphlet, printed on neon pink paper and featured a picture of a man in very short shorts.  On one of the first pleasant weather days that we had in a while, a friend texted me and asked if I want to go do something outside. We went to a local park and thought we would try to throw this boomerang. Certain that we would be boomerang world champs in the next few minutes, we whipped out the pamphlet. Not surprising, we did not end up with a single successful boomerang throw. We read the instructions but after a few failed attempts we gave up saying “we should have YouTubed this.” This story is what finally made me understand student directed, inquiry based learning. Let’s pretend for a second that the end learning goal is that students know how to throw a boomerang (you can substitute just about any learning goal, but let us go with my boomerang goal). How would a teacher, especially one who does not know how to throw a boomerang, teach kids how to throw a boomerang? This got me thinking about creating the ideal learning conditions, versus teaching. In traditional teaching, I would need to know how to throw a boomerang, be an expert actually, able to analyze the various throws of the students and find the mistakes and be able to provide feedback and correct mistakes.  I have no idea how to throw a boomerang, but I do know how to teach learning. Here is what I would do: I would have a resource list of YouTube videos, articles about boomerang throwing, maybe some information about famous boomerang throwers and their advice, and give them full access to a library and the internet. I would then provide a whole bunch of boomerangs, a wide open space and some digital video cameras. Here is how it would go down. I would start with the goal, be able to correctly throw a boomerang. I would design a way to prove that students have gained this knowledge – Students will email me a video of them correctly throwing a boomerang by Friday (if I was really good, I would have them create a YouTube video explaining to someone else how to correctly throw a boomerang with demonstrations). I would lay out a process for them. First students will research the correct way to throw a boomerang. Students will create a list of criteria for success for boomerang throws (what makes a boomerang throw “correct?”)They will then try to throw the boomerang based on their research, and video themselves (or a partner). They will critique their own video based on the criteria which they established. Students will compare their video to expert videos that they found online.  They will then correct mistakes, and try again, and again, and again, going through the critique cycle until they have a throw that they consider correct, and can submit, along with the student established criteria for success.

This all sounds great, right? OK let’s break it down:

What did the teacher do?

1)      Chose a learning goal

2)      Provided materials and resources

3)      Created a process for students to follow

4)      Had a concrete goal and deadline.

What did the students do?

1)      Researched the topic in a way that met their style of learning (If I learn best via videos, I am going to naturally watch videos, if I learn best from reading, then I can get a book)

2)      Created criteria of success – They knew what they had to do to be successful and were invested in that success because they created what that meant.

3)      Completed tasks, collected data, analyzed their data.  This is usually what teachers do, but why? Kids will get so much more out of finding the mistakes and correcting them, than they will if we tell them what to do.

4)      Completed an assessment.

5)      Most importantly: learned how to learn! Whether or not they will ever need to throw a boomerang in their life is irrelevant. They now know how to learn something, independent of anyone else.  So next time something comes up and they want to know how to fix a car, get into college, write a great paper, build a website, whatever, the process is the same.

The students did the work! Traditional teaching has been an expert at the front of the room imparting knowledge to a group. We live in an amazing age. No longer do we need to depend on someone else knowing the subject matter. But rather, with the internet, everyone has access, instantly, to the entire collective knowledge of all mankind! In this model the teacher facilitates. They do more work on the back end, of preparing materials, having clear expectations and learning outcomes, and almost zero time “teaching.” They are the sheep herder, steering the flock and catching those who stray away, or need a little extra support. The teacher is no longer the grand marshal leading the parade, but the person in the back making sure the parade moves forward. This is a HUGE paradigm shift for some people.

Side note/personal note: The DCPS coaching plan focuses on the “teaching.” It has mandated demonstration lessons, and co-teaching. If the design and facilitation is done correctly, there should be such minimal time devoted to teacher led lessons, that is would seem almost silly to devote so much time to coaching this part of teaching/learning. Rather that time could be spent on the back end, the planning side. Coaches should help teachers create the learning experience, not necessarily help with the delivery.  In student driven learning, it is exactly that, the student is driving, the teacher provided the map. So why is our coaching program looking like driver’s ed for teachers and not map making? We are forcing teaching and learning back to the 50s and wondering why it is not moving forward. I wonder no longer. The DCPS coaching program, as it is currently, and IMPACT, focus heavily on the delivery of lessons. The traditional teacher standing in front of students, telling them something, hoping that they “get” whatever the teacher is saying, is outdated. How about, help teachers create learning experiences where students are the drivers, let coaches focus on helping teachers with planning more than lesson delivery, and focus IMPACT on how well students know how to learn, not how well teachers know how to teach.

Why the Technology Instructional Coach program in DCPS will fail

DC Public Schools funded 11 Technology Instructional Coaches (TIC) for the 2014 -2015 school year. This represented the first time that DCPS has funded this position in multiple schools.  This move was prompted by the city council and was aimed at helping the District’s children to become more technologically proficient. As standardized testing moved to an online platform, DCPS threw money at a last second, disorganized effort, to catch up with other districts. This program was disorganized from the start, and spent the last year dealing with some serious growing pains. First, the positive, the coaches that were hired are all experts in technology integration and all are already notably accomplished in this arena. All but two were hired from outside the district and a manager was brought in from Arlington, VA. The coaches were quickly frustrated as they learned that the technology integration models that are successfully implemented in other districts were not copied or even considered. DCPS chose to take its already existing Instructional Coach program and tack on the word technology. The existing coaching program aims at providing scripted and overly structured support to teachers mainly in the areas of reading and math.  It is the insistence by a few people at central office, to adhere to this suffocating format that will sink the TIC program. It is set up for failure and already, some talented people are abandoning what is sure to be a sinking ship.

                                                                                                                                   

The IC model, as it is written, is geared towards coaches spending many hours a week with a small group of teachers working through scripted plans which are supposed to improve their teaching. The existing ICs focus on one particular subject such as math or small group literacy. Anyone who knows anything about true technology integration should be quick to shout “Technology is not a subject!” True technology integration is present in all aspects of teaching. It is something that is authentic, and often student led. When working with a coach, a teacher is to lay out a specific student data point to be improved. Example: 80% of students will increase their words read per minute by 10 words.  A coach will identify where this skill should be taught, and help the teacher to improve their teaching to achieve this data point increase. The coach and teacher will work on nothing else for a full six weeks. If true technology integration is the goal, the focus can not be that myopic. Tech integration is not a data point, although it can be measured, it is not a program or a teaching method, it is a tool. Let me say that again, technology is a tool.

I recently tried to explain the concept of technology being a tool, and not a content area, to someone, it went something like this: I can hand you a pencil. The pencil is the tool. The pencil will not make you a better speller, although you can now show the teacher you are a better speller. The pencil cannot make you learn math, but it can help you practice your math problems until you can work them successfully. The pencil can be used for math, and reading, and writing. The pencil can help you communicate and progress in school. If everything was verbal before, and now you have pencils, your teaching may look different, but will be better. If I measure usage of the pencil, that will tell me nothing about spelling, only that you used the pencil. A good TIC will give a teacher lots and lots of different kinds of metaphorical pencils. They will help to provide tools to enhance teaching and learning. This can be as simple as sharing a new resource with a teacher, or as complex as helping a teacher figure out that the internet is more than just Google. The goal is not to get teacher simply using technology, but utilizing it to really show measurable growth in student learning.

In ten years, my current second graders will be graduating high school. I can only imagine the world that they will be entering. Whether they choose to go to college, or into the work force, I can be sure of one thing, technology will play a large and important role in their lives. They will need to have the skills to navigate a digital world. The process in which they attend college or focus on a career will be drastically different than it is even now. They need the technology skills to be able to compete in a market where their suburban counterparts have had an iPad since birth. How can DCPS even begin to have its students come close to having the technological skills to be ready for this future world? It is not the current TIC model. The current model focuses only on one skill, with a small group of teachers, for six weeks. This is limiting and does not allow for the rigorous work that needs to be done to close an ever increasing technological achievement gap.

I am a TIC in DCPS. When I attended the first training for this new position, I was handed the same manual that is handed to a coach working in the realms of math or reading. Our next meeting, they forgot to give us a room and told us we could move some boxes and sit in a closet. The manager who was brought in from the successful program in Arlington, VA, was getting increasingly frustrated with the constraints put on the TICs. The TICs were getting frustrated as well. We all had the same goal of student learning, but the path to get there was no twisted, it was preventing us from reaching our destination. The leaders at central office did not understand the true idea of technology integration, that it is a tool. At our most recent meeting we were told that our frustrations, our concerns, and our expertise in this area were, and I quote “not special.” Rather than listen to the decades of experience in the room, rather than listen to the concerns of the experts in this field, even more restraints would be placed on the TIC program next year. The TICs came up with a list of very specific, and reasonable changes that could be immediately implemented at no cost, and would save time and paperwork. They were immediately dismissed without consideration.  Also, instead of a person who had experience in tech integration overseeing the coaches, they would now report to someone who has had zero experience with integration because it would be more convenient.  I was sitting in the meeting with the head of Instructional Coaches, where we pleaded, presented evidence, shared our experience and sang in one voice that this program will fail, unless changes are made. We were told, without explanation that if we would not fit a square peg into a round hole, we should think about finding new employment. We are being set up to fail, and will be blamed for sinking the ship.  Our training, experience and common sense tell us, that this plan is wrong and doomed to not succeed. We were asked to list the accomplishments that we had achieved this year. All of us looked at the list and could not help but noting that we could have done so much more. We were hampered by the confines of a system that is meant for math and reading. The IC program is likened to a bathroom scale. It is a great bathroom scale that works perfectly. However, you are asking us to measure how tall a person is, not how much they weigh. We need the tools and support to build a tape measure, not the blueprints for a functional bathroom scale. I must accuse DCPS of doing what is convenient and familiar instead of listening to experts and doing what is right for the students of DC.

The changes pleaded for by the current TICs are simple and reasonable. First, we would like shorter or more flexible coaching cycles. The current coaching cycles are fixed at six weeks. Throughout the year, we found that we needed longer or shorter time spans to accomplish our goals. We could still be accountable for working with the same number of teachers, at any given time, but this simple and no-cost change would allow us to work with a greater number of teachers, and tackle a greater number of small changes that can account for a huge difference. We asked that the successful coaching models in other states, and they are plentiful, be considered as models for shaping the TIC program in DCPS. The District is late to the game in terms of technology integration, and should not waste time trying to figure out ideal implementation, successful models exist, DC should be learning from them.  Every Instructional Coach in DC is given a pie chart saying how they should spend their time. The TICs asked that some of the percentages on the chart be adjusted for the extra technology repair and planning time that is demanded of them.  The last request was, that the TICs have more frequent and meaningful collaborative planning and professional development time. Again, all of these changes cost DCPS absolutely nothing. They simply require the head of the Instructional Coaching Program to be willing to admit that the integration of technology in the District does not fit perfectly within an already existing system.  By trapping technology in this system, the District’s children are being cheated out of the technological skills that they will need to become the citizens that DC deserves.