Krstovic's Thoughts on Education

Not too long ago I read a book by Todd Whitaker called “What Great Teachers Do Differently – 14 Things That Matter Most.” It was a short and easy book to read in which Whitaker summarizes some of the most important things that matter in teaching. Out of the 14 things that Whitaker outlines in his book, a few have stood out for me.

i) Great teachers know who is the variable in the classroom: They are! Good teachers consistently strive to improve, and they focus on something they can control – their own performance.

ii) Great teachers have a plan and purpose for everything they do. If things don’t work out the way they ad envisioned, they reflect on what they could have done differently and adjust their plans accordingly.

Recently I came across this YouTube video from TVO – What makes great teachers great? One of the guest speakers was Mary Kooy, who was one of my professors at OISE. She is the Head of Center for Teacher Education and Development at OISE/UT. Take a look at the video:

When I first came to Canada my Grade 8 math teacher thought that I struggled with numeracy as I could not do long division of larger numbers, when in fact I misunderstood the weird division symbol for a square root symbol on my first Canadian math test. Instead of dividing the two numbers I took the square root of the numbers (without using a calculator) and then multiplied them by the numbers in front of what I thought at the time was the square root symbol. When one of my peers who was appointed to tutor me in math explained to the teacher what I was actually doing the teacher became immediately drawn to my ‘superior’ math skills praising my special mathematical talent. It seemed like I became her favorite student.

Actually, I had no superior math skills or any special mathematical talent. I had just arrived from a much more rigorous elementary education system where Mathematics had the reputation of being particularly tough, where Physics, Chemistry and Biology were taught as separate subjects as early as Grade 6, and where discipline and work ethic were taken more seriously with clear consequences if either of the two were demonstrated insufficiently. So, I had done long division of larger numbers as early as Grade 3.

Are we underestimating what our kids can do here (in Canada) in elementary schools? Or could it be that schools in former Yugoslavia were simply expecting too much from the kids? Who would be better prepared later in life? It may even seem unfair to compare these systems given that times have changed so much since I was in elementary school, but I am giving it a thought nonetheless. I recognize the obvious changes that have occurred in the world, but I still question how rigorous and competitive is Canadian elementary school system compared to some other countries.

From my own experience, I can definitely say that my elementary education in former Yugoslavia prepared me far better for an academic life in high school than I would have received if I was educated in one of the public schools in Canada. I say this based on the fact that I found high school to be relatively easy even though I had just started to learn English as a Second Language.

I wonder what other people think about their elementary school experiences here or elsewhere? If you were educated here in Canada, what did you experience? How important is it to have a rigorous elementary education system for success in later endeavors? Does rigorousness of programs in elementary schools even matter, or are there more important life skills that need to be emphasized? I think we all can agree that kids need to able to read, write, think and speak so that they can communicate and represent their understanding of different subject matters.  If these basic literacy skills are developed insufficiently in elementary schools, then students will have a tougher time in high school.

For as long as I have know myself as a learner, and for as long as I have been a teacher, I have always tried to build an understanding of whatever concepts I have come across. Even with my own students I stress the importance of learning for understanding, and somehow I do not feel comfortable when I sense that my students do not understand. I feel that it is my job to help them build understanding. However, recently I have had the pleasure of learning for a different purpose. This has altered the way I think about learning.

The twelve weeks of Curriculum Foundations at OISE with Professor Ruben Gatzambide-Fernandez were immensely challenging yet incredibly rewarding. On my way home after each class I drove in complete silence, but my mind was screaming with confusion while working its way through the various curriculum theories of critical pedagogues such as Paulo Freire, John Dewey, , bell hooks (yes, her name in written in lower case letters), and many others. It was this state of confusion that I eventually embraced as a condition for learning. There was a different purpose to this class, and it was definitely NOT learning for understanding. So, if I was not learning for understanding, what was I learning for?

There is something to be said about learning from the confusion that arises when one encounters ideas, theories and philosophies that are not only perplexing, but often contradicting and rhetorical. One thing is for sure: the classmates in CTL1000 have been deeply moved by this state of learning (or unlearning). The classroom became a place where the concept of safety was questionable (at certain times), but where we learned to step out of our comfort zones and engage in discursive dialogue with our colleagues. In doing so, we connected at an intellectual level that would have never stimulated our neurons as much as if we did have a solid understanding of all that we read, heard or discussed. There was an atmosphere of trust and cohesion that resulted from the state of confusion. We learned in solidarity. We were all trying to make sense of what we were asked to read. I recall one class when the permeating state of bewilderment over the structuralist, phenomenological, functionalist and conflict theories engaged a group of us in a constructivist conversation that not only helped to clarify some of these theories, but also brought the group closer together.

Recently I have started to tell my own students that confusion is the first sign to learning, and that it is okay to be in that state. Today I told my students that only after four years of undergraduate studies in Chemistry, and after six years of teaching Chemistry, am I starting to truly understand the concept of equilibrium. Sometimes it may take eleven years before an abstract idea can crystallize into a concrete concept. There was a genuine and relaxed silence in the room.

I am sitting in my den looking through the window and admiring a snowman that a group of my neighbors built with their kids in the park directly in front of the building. I thought of how nice it looked as it smiled at me. I was happy to see that people were enjoying the snow with their children on a Sunday afternoon. About half an hour later a group of pre-teens, four of them to be exact, three boys and one girl, passed through the open space in the park where the snowman stood proudly. All four of them ran towards it.  I thought that they were happy to see the snow man, too. But no! They ran towards it, pushed it and destroyed it. They kicked it and jumped on it, and then continued walking through the park as though nothing had happened. I watched with a shocking look on my face and I wondered why did these kids have to destroy the snowman? Why couldn’t they have added to the snowman structure to make it nicer? Why did they feel the urge to destroy someone else’s work? If the same four kids were to walk by another form of art that was displayed publicly, such as a statute, would they also destroy that?  How would they feel if that was their snowman, and someone came along and destroyed it? As I continue to write this I keep staring at the pile of snow that once was a snowman. Maybe these kids meant no harm, and to them a snowman is just a temporary structure that would melt anyways. Clearly, they didn’t think about the effort that went into making it. Tomorrow when I walk into my class, I will share this scenario with my students and engage them in a discussion about the moral implications of the destruction of the snowman. I want them to uncover the hidden problems behind this event, and how the abolished snowman is a metaphor for what goes on in our contemporary society.

The art work that I used in this blog of a snowman is created by a talented artist Tracey Riedel. More of her art can be found on http://www.artwanted.com

I thank Tracey for creating such beautiful pieces of art!

The impact of storytelling in my science classes has been tremendous in terms of    ‘hooking’ students into learning. I tell my students a story of how Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin accidentally to make them understand that curiosity and persistence are important characteristics that imaginative people posses. In my senior chemistry class I tell the story of how the structure of benzene was first realized in one scientist’s dream of a snake biting its own tail. I tell the story of Benjamin Banneker, an African-American scientist, who studied the inner workings of his friend’s watch and then carved the wooden replica of each piece to make a clock that kept time until his death in 1806.

I especially favor the story of Nikola Tesla who channeled his childhood imagination into some of the most important inventions of the twentieth century.  I tell my students stories about scientists and their discoveries to make them appreciate the nature of science and the importance of creativity and imagination to innovation and development of new knowledge.  I want my students will realize that science is the foundation of an innovative culture.

When I introduce my Grade 9 students to Space unit I tell them a personal story of when I was lost in the Black desert in Egypt, and how I relied on the night sky to help me find my way back to the camp site.  I show them a few photos from my trip in to the Black and White deserts to make the story even more personal and convincing. I select stories that are relevant to a particular unit of study and that are representative of the diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds of my students. There is something about stories that captivates students’ imaginations. It gets them excited about a subject.

What’s your favorite science story that you tell your kids?

It’s been a while since my last blog entry. The year got off to a great start, but a busy start. I am in my fourth week of the Curriculum Foundations course at OISE/UT. The course started with the exploration of some of the early 1900’s conceptualizations of curriculum by education theorists such as Jane Adams, Franklin Bobbitt, George Counts, DuBois and Dewey. One of the ideas that impressed me the most so far is the idea of “Fordism” model of education, which is basically factory-like model of education that still pervades most of our public schools. However, public schooling as we know it today has not been around for a very long time. The notion that states should fund education is a relatively new concept. We have seen the emergence of many public schools during the 1900s, specially between 1900 and 1930 when the world was going through some rather difficult political and economic times. Today we take for granted the idea of public education! Before the public school came into law, there were private schools for the elite and chartered schools, which were established by the elites. Before that, education was something that occurred in churches and monasteries, and only a few were privileged to this monastic, religious education. John Dewey was the father of progressive education during the 1930s. His ideas were so advanced; however, the state refuted his progressive model of education and accepted the “Fordism” model. The schools today look like factories because they are modeled after factories. Dewey’s model was too messy and difficult to control by the state. So the idea that we can take students, partition them into classrooms with an authority figure (the teacher) and then teach them in rows would eventually after eight years of basic education produce citizens in the same way that if we manufacture different parts of a vehicle, assemble them together and we’d produce a functioning car. What problems do you see with this model? And what about figuring out what educational experiences should be presented to the kids, and in what order?  The basic premise of some early curriculum theorists was to take the adult as a model and figure out the curriculum that would develop a child into a learned person, and thus, a successful adult. Is it time to change the model of our schools? Who will initiate this change? Will it be supported by the province/state? How do we evaluate the new model, if we even know what the new model would look like? What kind of a society do we want in the 21st century? I feel that this is the time for change, and although change will be slow, its seeds may have started to be planted in a few progressive public school around the province.

Image credits: http://webpages.scu.edu/ftp/bdonaldson/images/classroom.jpg

November is known to be the busiest month for teachers. In addition to being extremely busy, November was even more intellectually and emotionally stimulating when it comes to teaching and learning. Never before had I listen to or engaged in more educational discussion than this month. I spoke and/or listened to the following educators:

Dr. Barrie Bennett, Associate Professor at OISE/UT; I have ongoing discussion with Barrie every Monday evening in his “Improving Teaching” course at OISE/UT

Garfield Gini-Newman – expert on critical thinking and lecturer at OISE/UT; I engaged in his three and a half hour lecture and dialogue about the meaning and importance of critical thinking in education

Barry MacDonald –  author of Boys Smarts and Boys on Target; the FMSS Learning Team attended his conference on November 6, 2010 in Toronto; I learned about ways to engage boys in school and much more about boys’ education

Dr. Avis Glaze – international leader in the field of education; I listened to her inspirational speech about the importance of character development in science education at the STAO conference

Annie Kidder – Executive Director of “People for Education” – incredible speech at the Teacher Learning and Leadership Conference

Annie’s blog    http://talktoannie.wordpress.com/

Annie’s organization’s website: http://www.peopleforeducation.com/

Paul Anthony – Director of Teaching Policy and Standards Branch, Ministry of Education; he spoke about the model for professional development for teachers

Minnijean Brown Trickey, Civil Rights Leader and Social Activist; she spoke about education for freedom and her struggle through integration (see my previous blog)

Leona Dombrowsky, the Honorable Minister of Education; the Hon. Minister Dombrowsky spoke about the quality of education in Ontario and the importance of teacher professional development for student achievement

I am looking forward to December when I get to relax for two weeks…!!!

I just came back from the TLLP conference where hundreds of teachers across Ontario had the opportunity to share their action research projects with each other and various other stake holders in the education field. The event was phenomenal in many ways.  One of the key note speakers at this two-day conference organized by the Ontario Ministry of Education and Ontario Teacher Federation was Minnijean Brown-Trickey. Minnijean got a standing ovation from hundreds of Ontario’s finest educators after her inspiring speech. For those of you like me who never heard of Minnijean before, she was one of a group of African-American teenagers known as the “Little Rock Nine.” On September 25, 1957, Minnijean Brown-Trickey marched to an all while high school in Arkansas under the gaze of thousands of armed soldiers and a worldwide audience. She faced down an angry mob that made threats to lynch. After showing us the documentary video of this event, many of us had just realized that the sixty-nine year old lady standing on the podium in front of us was that little girl in the documentary video. It was at that moment that education took on yet another entirely new meaning for me. As an activist for minority rights, Minnijean shared personal insights about education, all of which (for me) culminated in one statement: “Education is about freedom!”

Thank you Minnijean!

Here is the link to the video that Minnijean showed to us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvgvRChtkbA&feature=related

After listening to a talk by Garfield Gini-Newman tonight at OISE/UT,  I learned that teachers are not pushing critical thinking in their classes as much as they should be, myself included. One study found that today’s kids are more engaged outside of school than inside. This really concerns me, and it should concern every educator and parent out there. Why are our kids so disengaged from school?

While there may be several answers to this question, one answer alludes to the fact that teachers teach too much “stuff” to the kids without getting the kids to “think” enough about the “stuff” – and think critically about it. When we look at engagement data, it was further noted that:

• kids are more engaged in arts and tech classes than “academic classes”
• they were also more engaged in science than math
• kids were more engaged in math than in history or social science

What does this tells us about engagement?

I will let my readers figure the answer to this question on their own. Isn’t this part of what critical thinking is all about?

The idea of critical thinking is not new. One of the founders of our public education, Egerton Ryerson (1803- 1882) talked about it more than a hundred years ago.  But we still don’t do justice to critical thinking in our public education.

It is important to note here that critical thinking does not mean to criticize. The word ’’critical’’ derives etymologically from two Greek roots: “kriticos” (meaning discerning judgment) and “kriterion” (meaning standards). Critical thinking is an invitation to judge and assess in light of relevant factors or criteria. Gini-Newman’s argument is that we engage in critical thinking more often than we think.  For example, when we think about buying a new car or a house, we have an initial set of criteria that we use to help us make wiser decisions. Our kids do the same in their every day lives. Thus it would make sense that we should continue to nurture a community of thinkers in our classes by providing critical challenges while teaching and assessing the intellectual tools required for critical thinking.

The table below summarizes something interesting that I learned tonight in my “Improving Teaching” class with Dr. Barrie Bennett at OISE/UT.  If teachers are only presented with theory in their PD sessions (or in their B.Ed. classes), then their understanding of a theoretical concept  may go up (represented by one star in the table), but there is very little acquisition of the actual skills. There is also no transfer of that skill to a teacher’s daily practice. Furthermore, when theory and demonstration of the theoretical concept are presented (such as a demo of an instructional method), then the teachers’ understanding increases even more, however the skill acquisition still remains low (only 3%). Again, there appears to be no direct transfer to teachers’ daily practice. When theory, demo, practice and peer feedback are all used, both understanding and skill acquisition dramatically increase, however, there is only 5 to 10 per cent increase in transfer to practice.  Most of our classmates thought that there would be a much greater per cent transfer when all of these elements are combined. We were wrong.

Now take a look at the data in the last row. When theory, demo, practice, feedback and peer coaching are all used, not only do understanding and skill acquisition dramatically increase, but so does the actual  per cent transfer to classroom practice. This sheds light on the importance of peer coaching in sustaining newly learned skills and transferring them to classroom practice. Teams of teachers along with administrators should work together to ensure that peer coaching is an essential part of teacher professional development, otherwise, money is wasted on PD that does not get fully implemented in classrooms.

So, one might wonder, what is the point of having PD sessions in which someone speak to us (teachers) about a novel instructional strategy, or show us how to implement a new technological tool, if research tells us that these skills are not actually transferred to classroom practice? The thing that we should be focusing more on is how to make it possible for teams of teachers and administrators to work as peer coaches who will learn from education rounds much like medical students who develop a common practice with their colleagues. Sounds like Richard Elmore’s model of PD – the gee whiz stats seems to support Elmore’s work.