The fine line between learning and cheating.

An interesting thought came to me the other day as I was dealing with a minor "cheating" incident.  A student in an ESL class had typed a phrase, in Mandarin, into a website for translation.  And though the student was clearly in the wrong (he had specifically been told that he could not use his cell phone or the site in question) it got me thinking about the nature and use of technology in our classrooms.  More specifically, it raised the question in my mind "where does 'translation' end and 'copying' or 'cheating' begin?"  In the days of paper, when students used translation dictionaries, they had to piece things together one word at a time.  It was a labourious process that often ended up with some awkward sounding (or downright funny) results.  And sometimes, especially when homonyms were involved, the meaning of the phrase was lost altogether.  The first generations of electronic translators worked in a similar fashion.  But the teacher was sure that the work had been done one word at a time and that the student had spent some time working with English.


However, with the advent of powerful handheld devices and much more sophisticated translation technology, the process of translation within ESL classes has changed dramatically.  Students can now type phrases in Mandarin and the technology will translate the whole thing (though not always terribly well).  As software and algorithms evolve, these translations will become increasingly accurate encompassing things like idiomatic expressions and nuances. To add another dimension to this conversation, iPhones now have an app that will translate verbal communication on the fly.


With all this change comes an interesting dilemma.  Is use of this technology "cheating"?  Or is this just a different way for students to acquire a more clear and comprehensive understanding of the language as a whole?


As mentioned above, translations done one word at a time often distort, or even lose the meaning of a phrase.  But if students simply have to type a phrase into a translator, or dictate into their iPhone, and out comes the polished English version, will they learn the language effectively or will they just rely on the software at hand?




I'm sure the answer lies somewhere in the middle and is heavily dependent on both the context and how the teacher chooses to use or not use these technological tools.  But two things are for sure.  The days of the  "____________ (fill in the blank) to English" dictionary are numbered, and we ignore this software, (and dilemmas like this) at our peril.

One Sign of a Good School

One of the most vexing problems facing modern public schools and those with a vested interest therein is deciding what evidence of a ‘good school’ looks like.  At one end of the spectrum there are those who swear by statistical results on standardized tests.  In fact much of what passes for ‘educational reform’ is based on various sets and interpretations of numbers. (Though I’ll never for the life of me figure out how the designers of NCLB decided that  ‘punishing’ low performing schools by reducing funding was a good idea!)  Others look at graduation rates.  Our own government uses “satisfaction surveys” to garner opinion around BCs public education.

But anyone who is involved in education will tell you that most of these indicators are blunt instruments at best.  Completely misleading at worst.  Wandering around our school at lunch I was struck by what I would consider as genuine signs of a ‘good school’.  There was intramural ball hockey in the gym refereed by a teacher.  There were students eating lunch with teachers in various classrooms.  There were teachers and students playing pickup basketball together in the gym.  There were students working on various projects in the art rooms.  There was a group of teachers meeting to discuss student excellence in order to award scholarships at valedictory….and the staffrooms were all but empty.

The common theme in all of these was teachers volunteering their own time in order to enrich the lives of their students, in most cases, by simply being there as a responsible and caring adult.  These casual adult/adolescent interactions are what differentiates a true education from simply going to school.  Unfortunately for those intent on putting numbers and values on everything, measuring the value or the outcomes of such interactions is impossible.  The good news for the bean counters however is that fostering a culture where these interactions are the norm doesn’t cost anything.

Training our Brains for the Future

In a previous incarnation as a math teacher I would often be faced with the age old question, “But when are we gonna use this?”.  The more advanced the course, the tougher and more legitimate this question became.  When asked this question by grade 11 or 12 math students, my initial, somewhat glib (but nonetheless true) answer would be “For most of you, never.”  After getting over the initial shock that their hunches had been right and that someone was finally willing to admit it, I went on to explain why we had students doing abstract mathematics in the first place.  I usually used the following analogy; after asking the class how many students lifted weights (most of the boys would put up a hand whether it was true or not) I would ask the following question, “So, how many of you weightlifters are ever going to lie on your back and press a hundred pounds into the air?” (Nobody)  I’d continue “Thinking through and solving abstract math problems does the same thing for your brain that lifting weights does for your body.  Most of you will never use the actual concepts and mathematical tools that we’re learning here, but the problem solving steps and just the exercise for your mind, will help you in other endeavours down the road.”

As it turns out, I was bang on.  I’m currently reading a fascinating book by Rebecca Costa entitled “The Watchman’s Rattle” the main premise of which is that the complexity of most systems in the modern world has increased to such an extent that our caveman brains are just not up to the task of comprehending, much less solving, some of the problems we know are in our future.  She goes on to talk about how we may (must?) change our patterns of thought and behaviour if we are to avoid possible extinction. (Did I mention that the book is also rather sobering!?).  One of the big hopes that she discusses at length is the recent quantum leaps we’ve made in understanding brain function, and how we can use that knowledge to train ourselves, essentially, to “do better” than we have in the past at sorting out complex issues. Part of this process includes considerations of brain health, and more specifically the use of ‘brain training’.

Through the use of MRI scans, along with findings in psychological and cognitive research, neuroscience is finding that brains that are regularly exercised are much healthier and function better, particularly later in life.    The more accurate and detailed MRI scans become, the more information we gather as to exactly which parts of the brain perform which functions.   They’ve also discovered that, contrary to popular belief, neural connections can be formed at any age.  It would seem that you can in fact teach an old dog new tricks!

A quick search on the web uncovers a treasure trove of sites specifically dedicated to brain training, click here for an example. Brain training is fairly simple, doesn’t take a lot of time and best of all, it’s fun.  Try this one for example. Most brain training exercises are akin to video games, puzzles, memory exercises and riddles.

Though there’s not yet a lot of ‘hard evidence’ regarding results of brain training (due to the relative newness of the field) if anecdotal evidence and preliminary results are any indication, it may eventually become an integral part of school life.  Spending a few minutes each day playing games that involve memory, reflexive decision making, spatial thinking, and problem solving, exercises the different parts of the brain associated with the various functions.  A short daily regimen of these exercises would both 'warm up' students' brains for the day, as well as providing the long term benefits associated with a more complex set of neural connections.  With the advent of cheap and plentiful communication devices, having a school full of students doing brain exercises for a few minutes each morning seems like (pardon the pun) a no brainer.

Hey Kids, Do as We Say, Not as We Do.

Bully

noun

a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

We, in education, are always being asked to prevent bullying and to teach kids why bullying behaviour is wrong.  Though this is certainly a laudable goal, I shake my head at the shear hypocrisy these exhortations demonstrate about much of the society around us.

As teachers, one of the first things we learn is that the most powerful teaching tool we have by far is to model the skills and behaviours that we are hoping to teach.  Telling doesn’t work.  So in the schools we do our best to model things like sharing, compassion, cooperation and encouragement.  In short, we try to demonstrate all the opposite traits of bullying.  But then students leave the school each day (and eventually graduate).  Then what do they see?

They see things like our prime minister running a whole series of ad hominem attack adds.  They see parents at sporting events belittling referees and opposing players and coaches.  They see companies like Wal-Mart demanding that suppliers cut costs while turning a blind eye to the working conditions those suppliers must perpetuate to stay competitive.  They see governments unilaterally stripping workers of the right to collective bargaining. They see people like Rush Limbaugh mocking the Japanese earthquake survivors.  In other words, our society is rife with bullying behaviour, especially amongst our “leaders”, you know, the ones telling the schools that they should be preventing bullying!

The political and corporate worlds have always had a “bullying” element to them.  In recent times however, bullying tactics seem to have become the dominant model in both the political and corporate cultures.  We seem to accept it to such a degree that in many circumstances it’s become “the new normal”.

What’s worse is that this has happened because these strategies work.  If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be used.  So, the big question becomes, “Why are we so susceptible to, and willing to accept, bullying in so many of society’s institutions?”  Behaviour that we actively discourage on a personal level seems endemic to our political, corporate and media institutions, and we accept it.

We at the schools will continue to decry and work against bullying in all its forms.  But paradigm shifts need to take place across our society as a whole if we are serious about eliminating bullying.  After all, modeling is the best form of teaching.  Until we refuse to accept the exercise of power through intimidation, belittling and humiliation that we see daily on an institutional level, we can’t expect kids to take us seriously as we tell them that bullying is wrong.  Luckily, the vast majority of students at most of our schools understand this concept, perhaps they should be the ones teaching us?!

There was an interesting article in the Globe and Mail on Saturday (Feb. 26^th) regarding a new, and controversial, school in St. Catherines Ontario.  As with most controversies in education, no matter which side of the issue you find yourself drawn to, many valuable ideas, and some troubling concerns, are raised.  The school in question, which isn’t even slated to open until September of 2011, is a public school, (DSBN Academy) which is geared specifically to low-income students and their families.

“The academy promises extra supports, tutors, mentors and a golden ticket to university for low-income students in a region with withered roots in the manufacturing industry.”

Proponents of the model argue that an environment such as this is exactly what is needed to provide low income students the extra academic and social supports they need to have a closer to equal chance of moving on successfully to post secondary education.  While critics argue that such an environment is just one more way in which poor kids get stigmatized and ghettoized.  Both sides are correct.

Parents whose children would qualify for the school, but are nevertheless wary of the negative impacts, hit the nail on the head when they demanded of trustees why these kinds of supports are not available at their kids’ current schools.  The simple answer is that it is expensive to implement these kinds of supports at all schools, it is far cheaper, or more “cost effective” (depending on your political bent) for schools to specialize in dealing with various populations with different needs.  The article mentioned Toronto’s Africentric School as another example of a school catering specifically to the needs of the local community.

It’s true that different populations have different needs when it comes to schooling.  All kids need structure, support and opportunities for engagement in their lives.  For low-income kids, especially those with single parents, these kinds of supports are often not available at home.  A single parent (often working two jobs) simply does not have the resources (time, financial, material etc.) that middle and upper income families can provide.  If these can’t be provided at home then we, as a community and a civil society, must help provide them at school.  This is what is being proposed for DSBN Academy.

What many find troubling is that in order to give these low-income students extra support, should it really be necessary to move them into a school of their own?  If we’ve decided that ‘inclusion’ (in any of its many forms) is what we believe in as a model for schooling, isn’t this a step in the wrong direction?  After all, opening up a string of ‘specialized’ schools is essentially saying that inclusion does NOT work and that students do better in more homogeneous populations.  The school is being modeled after a similar school in California.  This in itself is a red flag for many.  After all, given the current state of public education in the US, do we really want to start modeling schools after a system that is in such great turmoil?

To me this whole issue boils down to realism vs idealism.   Given neo-conservative pressures from governments over the past 20 or 30 years, is opening up schools like the DSBN Academy just one more in a limitless series of small steps in nickel and diming to death the public school systems we’ve spent so many years building?  Or are current economic realities such that we should ignore idealistic goals and create schools that do the best job for students academically, despite possible long-term divisions and social stigmatization? 

Deep down I’m an idealist, so my vote would be with the former.  After all, specialization of schools is just what any acolyte of Frederick W. Taylor would recommend for purposes of efficiency.  But one thing more people need to accept is that education should not be a matter of efficiency, it should be a matter of efficacy, and efficacy may cost a little more.

The Reason for Teaching HOTS Demonstrated

Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) are becoming a hot topic in education reform, and that’s a good thing.  The trouble is that some people misconstrue the idea of teaching HOTS as a replacement for establishing a wide (and deep) knowledge base rather than a vital complement to a wide knowledge base.  This misconception, and other false dichotomies, are often put forth by people or institutions with a vested interest in the status quo.  One component of HOTS is the ability to recognize this, and figure out what’s really being “sold”.

In an article that appeared recently in the Vancouver Sun (Purdue University Study Confronts Edu-babble) Michael Zwaagstra makes a number of spurious points, and misleading claims.   For instance, when he says;  “Over the last decade, Manitoba eliminated most provincial standards tests, while at the school level, many administrators expect teachers to reduce their use of tests in the classroom. These administrators claim that students benefit more from hands-on activities than from memorizing items scheduled to appear on the next test.”  He is purposely misleading the reader into conflating tests with assessment.  And that if  “tests” are eliminated they will simply be replaced by “hands-on activities.” Surely the elimination of standardized tests does not mean that students will no longer be assessed on their work using other means?

Though Mr. Zwaagstra goes on to make some valid points regarding the value of memorization, the whole premise of his article is based on the false assumptions that a) teachers and administrators universally agree that all memorization is bad (they don’t) b) that teachers and administrators don’t understand the necessity of a solid knowledge base upon which to build HOTS (they do).

Mr. Zwaagstra quotes the author of the study (Professor Jeffrey Karpicke) as saying "But learning is fundamentally about retrieving, and our research shows that practising retrieval while you study is crucial to learning. Self-testing enriches and improves the learning process, and there needs to be more focus on using retrieval as a learning strategy."   Mr. Zwaagstra, however, then goes on to conclude that,  “However, we must ensure that testing remains a central component of what happens in school.”  This conclusion does not follow from the results of this study.  The conclusion of Professor Karpicke’s study is that traditional memorization, combined with continuous self-testing, often leads to better recall (or retrieval) than does other methods of studying.  In other words, traditional memorization and retrieval exercises lead to improved memorization and retrieval.  His study makes absolutely no claim whatsoever about keeping testing as a “central component of what happens in school”.

The biggest irony here is that without HOTS, readers of this article may accept the false dichotomies and contrived logic of Mr. Zwaagstra’s argument.  Without the ability to analyze and think critically, they may also miss the fact that Mr. Zwaagstra is a ‘research fellow’ with the Frontier Centre, a “conservative/libertarian non-profit think tank,” whose radio commentaries include such titles as “The Deception of Human Caused Global Warming”.  It’s no wonder then that writers of Mr. Zwaagstra’s ilk emphasize the value of rote learning, and downplay the necessity of teaching critical thinking and other HOTS.  After all, a paucity of critical thought is what allows ultra-conservative thought to thrive in North America.

Educators everywhere would agree with the necessity of teaching (among other things) factual knowledge, working knowledge and HOTS.  And given the rate at which much of our “working knowledge” and even some of our “factual knowledge” is changing, teaching HOTS is becoming an ever more important component of what we do as educators.  Critical thinking, problem solving, logical reasoning and other HOTS will always be useful and necessary skills, knowing the exact dates of the Winnipeg General Strike?…not so much.

Multi-....wait I've gotta take a call...Tasking

The current edition of Educational Leadership magazine is dedicated to “Teaching Screenagers”.  As one might guess there are articles related to cyber-bullying and what educational technology leaders are using in their classrooms.  But the content that I found most engaging were the ideas of current students and recent graduates around the use of technology in high school.  A few interesting opinions emerged as I read through their comments.  One topic of discussion was the increasing prevalence of multi-tasking.

For young people today multi-tasking is the norm.  Some even commented that they feel they have to do more than one thing at a time.  As one young person commented, “It’s not like we’re so distracted that we can’t accomplish anything.  It’s more that we’ve gotten into the habit of doing a couple of things at the same time and being able to function adequately in both areas.  I don’t think that’s a bad thing.”  What struck me immediately was the use of the word ‘adequately’.  This person was obviously aware, at least subconsciously, that while trying to accomplish multiple tasks simultaneously, a lack of focus would actually hinder the outcomes.  After all, most of us don’t shoot for “adequate”.  So given that multi-tasking seems to be the new norm, I think it’s important that we make all students more aware of how the brain works and what the implications of multi-tasking really are, both positive and negative.

For instance, research has shown that our brains are not really made for true multi-tasking.  What we actually do is shift focus from one thing to another and then back again quickly and repeatedly, but we can really only focus on one thing at a time, especially men (insert snide comment here ladies). And with evolutionary biology being what it is, despite what the current generation of young people might believe, the human brain of today is not vastly different from human brains of the past; we just have more things competing for our attention.  If true multi-tasking were a forte of the human mind then cell phone use, and texting while driving wouldn’t be a problem.

Another interesting point of note was how social etiquette is being redefined in the age of iPods, cell phones and texting.  As one of these young people pointed out, it’s no longer considered rude (by some) to be receiving and sending texts while conversing with a friend or colleague.  Well, though others may not consider unsolicited impositions on their time rude, I certainly do.  And given what I’ve pointed out above, I defy anyone to fully engage in a conversation while texting such that the length and depth of the conversation is unaffected.

As technology continues to change the way we communicate and interact with each other, we need to make students mindful of the less obvious repercussions.  Students need to know that doing numerous things at once will indeed affect the outcome of each of the tasks.  And though social mores change with the times, and fatuous customs may fall by the wayside, (“Hats off inside boys!”) impositions on the time of other people will continue to be considered “rude”. As information technology facilitates communication, it also facilitates distraction.  In her book The Cult of Efficiency, Janice Gross Stein makes clear the difference between efficiency and efficacy.  We must ensure that as information technology becomes more ubiquitous, we teach students not to sacrifice the latter in a quest for the former.