How much can 11th graders handle?

Phil Zimbardo's TED Talk on the psychology of evil and heroism is powerful. I'm thinking about using it for a unit on Cause and Effect as it addresses the issue of root cause as systemic or individualistic. Please watch it and let me know (via the poll above or in comments) whether you think it would work for 11th or 12th graders (17-18 yrs old)
Thank you very much!!!
Mindy

Mindy and some of her former students recently published Transparent Teaching of Adolescents, a discussion of effective teaching strategies for high school. Join the conversation!

How Improv can Help Students Transfer Skills

Improv is one of the best ways to see the brain working-making connections and inferences, based on understandings and knowledge.

Whose Line is it Anyway? is a show that fully rests on its participants' ability to improvise scenes, characters, and plotlines. No scripts, no memorization. On Bloom's taxonomy, the results of this type of performance are indicative of the highest intellectual behaviors, namely creating, analyzing, and applying.

While there are a few regular participants on the American version of the show, most notably Colin Mochrie, Ryan Stiles, and Wayne Brady, guest participants keep things fresh. What makes this show work, though, is the fact that its primary participants have the ability to access and recall information at lightening speed. Their respective repertoires, particularly Mochrie's ability to synthesize literary and cinematic genres, Stile's ability to portray and/or mimic a character or actor, and Brady's musical adroitness, reflect a vast amount of knowledge. 

In this video excerpt, the structure, "Scenes From a Hat", finds guest Robin Williams joining the crew. As you view the video, pay particular attention to the scene "World's Worst Subject for an Interpretive Dance".

 
In this particular scene, participants have to make choices that convey at least three of the facets of understanding (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005,pp. 85-103) in order to satisfy the prompt: interpretation, application, and empathy.

In order to provide his interpretation, Ryan conveys his understanding of the concept of interpretive dance (a style that seeks to express human conditions or situations) and does so through his empathetic subject, diarrhea, as the expression.

He makes this choice in three seconds.

It is this ability to reach into the brain's already existent body of knowledge to express that knowledge in a new and different way that we want students to be able to do, isn't it?

The biggest issue is not that we're not teaching students the "What" of the curricula or the standards. We've got that handled! It is that we sometimes forget to teach them how to use what they know in different situations, what Wiggins & McTighe refer to as "transfer" (p. 78).

Much like the muscles in our body that we have "train", we can also train the brain to more effectively and expediently find/locate/access information already stored . And we can do it using these improv structures.

Consider also the collaborative potential, which requires acute awareness of a situation--a valuable skill for a reading passage or math problem and a standard for improv performance. Robin specifically seizes upon Ryan's choice of a body function to express a body non-function--impotence.  Most likely, he also does this in three seconds as well, but he appropriately and professionally "holds" for laughter and applause.

Then, Wayne immerses himself in the scene by acknowledging Robin's perspective as the "penis"and he, Wayne, as the "owner"--three seconds. Robin has to acknowledge the shift to one of collaboration, which he does when Wayne touches him, and the two then convey a dual connection to dance by applying a (albeit not very graceful) ballet-type exit. 

Can improv be used in the classroom? Absolutely. It may require a bit of establishment of protocol (e.g., in our Theatre classes we had the No P-Rule: No Profanity or Pornography), depending on your level of students. But imagine this:

Explaining a concept to students and creating "Scenes From a Hat" that would require them to use their knowledge of that concept. Recently, for example, I observed a Biology Class that discussed endocytosis and exocytosis. Imagine students prompted with something like, "World's Worst Cell Membrane". In order to satisfy the prompt, they'd have to access their understanding of the fluidity of the membrane and seek to do the opposite.


What I'd recommend (based on my experiences with varying degrees of student confidence at doing these sorts of things) is putting students into two or three groups and having them do a few rounds of the structure using scenes or props that you have selected. That way, the sense of "all eyes on me" isn't so profound.


Then, you can have volunteers do a few rounds for the class on the "fun" topics, followed by the "real" concepts you want to them to understand. What naturally occurs is that those observing soon turn their thinking towards the prompt as opposed to just "watching". That is, they begin to make the choices they would use IF they were performing.  What I would inevitably hear from those observing to those performing was "Why didn't you___?"

The ability to think quickly, coupled with the kinesthetics of this approach, will most certainly have all students authentically engaged, and if you develop your topics well, also conveying a depth of understanding.

"Scenes From a Hat" is only one of many structures. Taking a few moments out of your day to watch a few videos from this show will no doubt give you some more ideas!




 Mindy Keller-Kyriakides is the author of Transparent Teaching of Adolescents: Defining the Ideal Class for Students and Teachers.  Become part of the conversation!

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005) Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Leggo My Ego!

Do teachers carry some innate sense of ego or self importance?  Do we over-reach our authority, reflecting our own personal “agendas”?

I’ve struggled with these questions for the past week or so from a recent Twitter conversation. First, because it connects to my thesis on teacher identity and secondly, because I then wondered to what extent I’d allowed my own self-importance to take precedence in my choices for curriculum or coursework. Was I a complete egomaniac?  It’s taken me a while to reply because I prefer to reflect on things before replying, so here goes!

As a first year teacher, I know I did that. My choice to have students perform and produce The Tragedy of Macbeth was a rookie mistake and completely self-absorbed. I wanted to show off, basically. Annnnd I did. But not before most likely crushing a few students along the way by pushing them into something well beyond their abilities. Thankfully, it turned out beneficial (the students were proud of their work), but I hadn’t considered their input enough.

At the end of my second year, I began to see that high school students, when given options, were so much more enjoyable to work with! So, we had a brainstorming session about the upcoming work and vision of the Theatre department. We worked together to determine the best way to change the course and curriculum to better reflect their abilities (going forward) and the abilities of their classmates coming into the department.

Garnering student feedback was the single most humbling thing I ever did.

Teenagers will tell you how it is. They won’t hold back. What they wanted, they said, was more responsibility and freedom.

     “Okay…so, what do I do?” I asked them.

     “Give us the general idea, and if we have questions, we’ll ask.” They said.

Our Book! : )

As a result of giving them a bit more responsibility and freedom, we learned together how to forge a classroom that understood the power of mistakes and used failures to move forward. Oh, they did do some silly things—such as painting purple designs on the walls of the school—but overall, it was a successful endeavor. We were a risky bunch!  Plus, when their teacher made mistakes, it was hysterically funny.

One day, as we all stood around a mis-constructed set unit that was too high to be used, solely based on the teacher’s lousy (or lack of) measurements, we were silent for a moment, hands on our hips. Then, we burst into laughter borne of humility. Wiping away our tears, we moved forward as always.

My answer then, to my former Twitter-follower, is “Yes, you’re right in that we generally push our methods. However, we also have the ability to learn to do otherwise! That’s why our book is not written solely by me, but along with my students.  They were truly the authors of their class experience, so they share in its royalties.  I may have been possessed of some sort of ego at first, but they sure fixed that!
 
It makes sense, then, not to ram an opinion down someone’s throat without taking the time to get to know them and how they tick and what they think. The irony of this conversation and its reliance upon hasty generalization is not lost on me. Where you wished to take me, sir, may not be where I would have gone.

The Conversation:
He:  Read this. Perhaps you wld intrupt them and give a blessed assignment? Blog Link

Me (after reading article): Would endeav. to guide them into even richer experience They did gr8t but how much more could've been accomplished w/ guidance?

He:  Don't you see? The adults "guidance" has a goal. Where u wish to take them may not be
        where they wld have gone

     “Would endeav. to guide them into even richer experience." this is the adult ego/self importance I speak of.

Of Chalkboards and Laptops and Visual Literacy

This week, AnnMarie (co-author, former student, fellow educator) and I will be presenting a webinar  via UNC at Chapel Hill's SCALE Read. Write. Act. National Conference. Our focus is on achieving greater Visual Literacy through rhetorical analysis. You’re all invited, of course! We're "on" at 2pm EDT, Friday.

Because of the webinar, perhaps, my visual literacy senses are tingling painfully. Every image or video I watch, I consider its potential merit for discussion in a classroom. The image below came through on an assignment in one of my grad classes. We were to assume the role of a school improvement committee and present our plans for a technology upgrade. 

When I first looked at this image, I thought:  

        Graphically, this is a “clean” image. The colors stand out very well, and it’s easy to read. 

All noteworthy points to consider for a PowerPoint presentation. However, something about it bothered me.

It reflects an outdated mental model—that of chalkboards, chalk, and erasers. The word “technology” on a chalkboard doesn’t work. It’s contradictory. And the use of the image reflects the author’s mental model as holding desperately onto some Norman Rockwell idealistic image of teaching. 

Yes, the font is neat. Too neat. I can’t remember the last time my handwriting was that neat on a chalkboard. Yes, the image is clean. Too clean. My chalkboards hardly had any green on them at all as the dust from multiple erasures and changes created a funky nimbus cloud--that of a chalkboard in use. What’s the reality? Why do we strive so hard to avoid it?

This image, presented to an intended audience of teachers, ineffectively illustrates the argument of the slideshow, which was to encourage teachers to use more technology in the classroom. It doesn't work.

How are we going to get teachers to use and authentically integrate technology, if we insist on holding these images up as the ideal?  It’s cute and quaint, I grant you. On a subconscious level, which is where these visuals hit home, it says, "Not really. jk. Hold to tradition." 

Until districts and administrators understand that teachers need specific (paid!) training in how to use the available technology, and until teachers admit that they are somewhat daunted by it and holding onto familiarity, we’ll get nowhere. And our students will continue to disconnect from what we do, noting the discrepancy between the “real” world—an ironically digital one—and our static educational world, leaving us behind in a cloud of chalk dust.

Mindy Keller-Kyriakides is the author of Transparent Teaching of Adolescents: Defining the Ideal Class for Students and Teachers.  Become part of the conversation!

Prometheus...Teaching

The best assignments are those that move students from where they are to where they could or should be, but how does the movement work? Is it akin to traveling on a road, making a series of stops, or is it more a snowball effect, creating mass? Most teachers “get” that a high-quality assignment incorporates critical thinking and standards, and that rigor equates to challenge.  However, we sometimes get caught up in creating individual challenging, rigorous lessons without determining how and where they impact the whole.  

 

If we consider every assignment as a singular event, we create a linear experience. The assignment may be high-quality and may even be rigorous, but if it’s developed with point A to point B thinking, we are buying into the mile-long, inch-deep approach.

However, if we consider each assignment as a connective transition, we don’t move linearly; we create an expanding sphere of knowledge and practice—a fusion of ideas that creates meaning for and from a larger whole. 

Consider the following assignment, which was part of a unit on Evil, which was part of a year-long English curriculum designed to help students contemplate the question “What makes us human?” 

They read Shelley’s Frankenstein and created collages representing their analyses of the symbolism in the novel. Use of a non-text response to a print medium is challenging on many levels, and I could have had them simply present their work and stopped there, assigning them a grade, which would’ve been an “okay” assignment. 

High quality? Sure, if you consider the multitude of standards embraced by it. Rigorous? Yes, at least according to what research has to say on this sort of thing.  

 

However, by understanding the idea that an assignment is a transition of thought, designed to expand thinking in connection to the next assignment (or unit), we can craft more in-depth, challenging coursework.

We created an art gallery and moved from picture to picture, discussing the works, but the artists were not permitted to speak about their own designs. They had to listen to how viewers interpreted their non-print symbolism analyses; thus, the assignment garnered analysis on two levels: from the spectator p.o.v. as well as self-reflective and evaluative levels (How well did I succeed in conveying the meaning?).

Then the students presented their intended meanings. The class took notes on the intentions, and wrote a rhetorical analysis. How and how well did the artist convey his/her argument for the symbolism in Frankenstein? 

So, for those keeping track: the students have analyzed for their own purposes (creating the collage), analyzed another’s purpose, evaluated, and self-evaluated. Here’s where we really make the biggest impact, though.

While we’d been working on these collages in-class, the students had read their next text: Dave Pelzer’s A Child Called ‘It’.  We had our standard discussion, ensuring comprehension and garnering reactions.

However, the students then had to select a poster (not their own), originally designed for Frankenstein, that they felt best represented an argument in It.  They made extremely powerful, emotional connections between Shelley and Pelzer, the Creature and David as well as Victor and Catherine, which further deepened their understanding of humanity. 

To arrive at the sort of assignment that quickens the intellect, teachers need to have the end in mind, but we also need to understand that the end isn’t a destination. It is a state of understanding that has been reached through a series of expanding, spherical layers. The destination is already inside the student, and purposefully layering assignments to help him/her attain  a personal depth of understanding is what a truly rigorous curriculum does.  
  

 Mindy Keller-Kyriakides is the author of Transparent Teaching of Adolescents: Defining the Ideal Class for Students and Teachers.  Become part of the conversation!