Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Sources with Scientists, Part 4

School thoughts on this topic . . .

The type of research that Katie and Bruce perform is very much about knowledge construction, where they build meaning out of a situation that does not have a predetermined end result. One thing I will be looking to document is whether other fields require this type of research as well.

I contrast the knowledge construction model to many of the research projects I recognize from years of working in schools, primarily at the middle school grades. School research projects often take on the form of a scavenger hunt, where students gather and organize clues from various research sources to complete an assignment that meets an expected set of outcomes.

For example, a research paper on Abraham Lincoln is assessed on how well a student covers and includes certain bits of data, like Lincoln’s early life, his political career, the incidents of the Civil War, his assassination, etc. There are certain expected elements of the finished project.

So we are looking at two types of research projects that are quite different in their approaches. One primarily requires convergent research skills while the other builds in a divergent way; one reports facts while the other constructs a story; one is guided discovery, one is led by self-discovery.

Perhaps an early step in planning research reports in school will be to determine the goals of the project and decide whether those goals are best met through the knowledge construction model or the scavenger hunt model.

More to come . . .

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Sources with Scientists, Part 3

The previous post on evaluating sources from a scientist’s perspective dealt with the sources themselves . . . now we’ll look at the skills of the scientist.

In order to effectively evaluate the worthiness of data, the scientist must be able to:
• Understand the limits of data
• Clarify the purpose of collecting the data
• Build a framework for understanding what’s needed
• Employ the process of ‘brain-dropping’ (finding and setting aside nuggets of data for later consolidation)
• Create flexible outlines
• Evaluate visual data
• Recognize bias
• Deconstruct sources

Over time, we will examine and process these skills, especially as they relate to the classroom. We will also be looking for consistency of skills in the data gathered from researchers in other fields.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Sources with Scientists, Part 2

We covered a number of areas in our discussion, one of which was what to consider when assessing data. In other words, what do we want to know about the data before deciding whether it is worth using.

Here are some of the considerations:
Age of the data
• What has changed since data was published?
• Is there newer data on same topic?
What are the qualifications of who supplied the data?
• Background
• Reputation
• Potential bias
• Credibility
How close is data source material to raw data?
• How is source using raw data?
• Is the data research-based and cited?
• Can the data be confirmed?
How clear is the data?
What is the volume and specificity of information?
Is there depth and sophistication to the data?

In a school setting, perhaps a pre-requisite research skill would be to assess data sources before having to use them. Create a rubric that will allow students to ‘grade’ a data source as a way of developing a more critical eye towards the data they collect, rather than assuming that all sources are of equal value.

A further thought is that this evaluative process may be done through a ‘low-stakes’ exercise to encourage kids gain comfort with the process without feeling that asking questions or making mistakes will result in penalties.

Still more to come . . .

Friday, September 12, 2008

Sources with Scientists, Part 1

Returning to the project of evaluating data sources, I had a fruitful interview yesterday with two scientists, Katie & Bruce. We discussed the processes involved in their work, as well as applications to school. To reiterate, my objective is to explore how to teach students the process of evaluating data sources, since so much data is available to them.

One of the areas that arose from our discussion is determining the purpose of a data collection exercise. Two emerging thoughts: sometimes data collection is to meet discreet goals, and other times it is to construct understanding.

In the first case, we have an assignment akin to a scavenger hunt where we want students to find particular bits of information to satisfy the completion of a standard set of knowledge goals. An example would be asking students to file a report on the battle of Gettysburg that includes the setting, the duration of the battle, the number of casualties, the immediate results of the battle, and so forth – a fact-driven exercise.

In the case of constructing understanding, the goal is more indefinite and open to interpretation, and there are multiple conclusions that may be reached. The example would be a research report in which a student would have to support or dismiss the concept that Gettysburg was the turning point of the Civil War.

Without a doubt, it is possible, and even common, for school research projects to incorporate both kinds of thinking within a single report. But by recognizing two distinct processes, we can better start to prepare students for two types of data-collection even before we begin the process of evaluating sources.

More to come . . .

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Law of Unintended Consequences

I’ve been thinking about this term lately so I did a little research. The most succinct explanation of the Law of Unintended Consequences I could find came on a website called Marginal Revolution: “The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system.”

Examples abound. This one tells how the Americans With Disabilities Act resulted in disabled people actually being hired for jobs less frequently. It wouldn’t take long to think of other examples.

Its application to changes in special education law is the reason I have been thinking about it. Special Education used to work on a discrepancy model, where children would qualify to receive services if there was a significant gap between ability and achievement. The unintended consequence? Many parents received the same explanation – even though your children are struggling, they haven’t fallen far enough behind to receive targeted help. This is like a lifeguard telling the sputtering non-swimmer, Sorry, even though it would be easier and less painful now, I can’t rescue you until you go under for the third time. See you later!

A couple of years ago, a new model was encouraged – response to intervention (RTI). In this model, struggling readers go through several tiers of support at the early stages of struggle. The thinking is that the first tier will address most of the issues, but the ones that need to move on to the second and third tiers of more intensive support would do so.

The RTI model is still new, so the Law of Unintended Consequences has not played itself out yet. But, based on observation (not research), my concern is that tiered approach will be based strictly on programmatic decisions. In other words, schools will purchase a program that will serve children in the first tier. Then the they will have another program for children in the second tier, and yet another for third tier.

If none of the programs have the desired effect, then the child might receive an individualized program, but it may be a year or two after initial concerns were raised. RTI has the potential to become a model that favors ease of placement over individual needs. It is a far simpler process to purchase a ready-made remedial program than it is to plan and deliver one based on the needs of the individual child.

Certainly, the discrepancy model had shortcomings that needed to be addressed. Certainly, many kids will benefit from the interventions that RTI can provide. But that tricky Law of Unintended Consequences just might bite the kids who can least afford to be bitten.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Evaluating Sources

There is a further idea on pursuing study of how to equip students with the new literacy skills necessary for a global world. I will be speaking with people in the working world who regularly have the need to evaluate data sources to study the thought processes they engage.

For example, a journalist receives many bits of data while preparing a story, but must discard some because they don’t meet a professional standard or are not relevant to the story. I’m not worried about the procedures of source evaluation, but the underlying thought processes and the corresponding literacy skills that are engaged.

By interacting with people in a number of diverse fields, I hope to be able to use the backwards design process to develop a program of literacy enrichment for today’s students. I have my first research partner on board, and am working on lining up several more.

More as this develops . . .

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Literacy for a New Era

This is the starting line as I began a period of independent thought and study.

In past generations, students received most of their information from teachers, school books, and libraries. Once receiving information, students initially had to learn, understand and remember the facts. Higher levels of education called for analysis, application, synthesis and evaluation – all steps on Bloom’s Taxonomy in the cognitive realm.

These skills are still needed in an increasingly global world.

But now that the access to information is virtually unbarred, students must develop an additional, almost pre-requisite skill set. For past generations, data was static – now much of the data students can access is dynamic and ever-evolving.

For example, when I was in the 4th grade, the social studies curriculum was New York state. I could read the textbook, listen to the teacher, watch a filmstrip in class, and pull information from a library book or encyclopedia to learn about the topic. My knowledge base was almost identical to that of my older brothers, and that of my younger brothers – little changed over the decade we spanned.

Today? A basic search on the www would yield more information than I could process in a lifetime. In six months, the same search terms typed into the same search engine might lead me in a dozens of new directions. Not only am I no longer limited to my textbook, teacher, and the library for information, but I have more data than those sources could ever provide for me.

So . . . where does this go? My preliminary thought is that there are initially three literacy skills that jump out at me as being particularly critical. They are:
• Accessing information (can I find the data I want?)
• Evaluating sources (how reputable are my sources?)
• Pre-synthesis (can I pull sources together in such a way that I can begin to understand them?)

This is the starting line . . . where the course leads will continue to evolve.