Thinking Routine

I've been spending a little time re-reading and reviewing Tom March's new article on WebQuests. I mentioned it early.

One of the sections that I am reflecting on heavily is about the Thinking Routines. Tom shares three "formats" that are frequently used in classroom. The one I like best, because it fits my personality and style, is See > Think > Wonder.

• What do you see?
• What do you think about that?
  
• What does it make you wonder?

This format lends itself to discussion and reflection. The suggested use is with art, or museum trips. However, with very little imagination, it can be broadened. Twenty years ago, in a different setting (youth minstry), a friend and I published something we called a magalogue (part magazine, part catalogue) called So What? It was aimed at what we thought were important issues for the church to consider in the wake of the scandels of the 1980s. The concept of the magalogue was to answer the question, "so what?," and explain why some things in life really are important. We were going to add a second publication called Who Cares? directed to youth workers, who cared about young people.

Anyway, I have never forgotten what motivated me in the 1980s in working with kids, and the guiding question, under which I evaluate most things, is "So what?" What difference will this (whatever "this" is) really make in the life and growth of those affected by the "thing." In education, I find myself asking this question everyday. New reading program...so what? New leadership in the system...so what? New standards from the state...so what? NCLB...so what? If the answer to "so what?" becomes something that effects my values, beliefs, purpose, then I fight for what I think is right. It is how I live with no regrets.

As I said, I have been thinking and reflecting on the Thinking Routines Tom mentioned. I have developed my own, which when I am in the classroom again (see future entries about my desire to return to the classroom) I think I can use consistently with my students.

• What's Up? - Identify the issue. What are the "sides of the story?"
  
• So What? - Why is this issue worth our time and consideration?
  
• Who Cares? - What difference does it make, or could it make in your life to make a difference?

I can see myself wrapping everything I do around these three simple questions. I can also see myself influencing my students to developing a way in which the can begin to think critically on a topic. I am trying to find out more about the Thinking Routines Tom briefly discusses.

Thanks To Tom March

Tom March and Bernie Dodge are, in my opinion, the brilliant minds behind using the internet/web for student learning.  They are the inventors of the WebQuest.  Those of us who have ever attempted to use the web for teaching and learning are indebted to their research and contribution to taking a mess which we call the Web, and streamlining it for increased engagement, time on task, and instruction.

When I was completing my Ed.S. degree in Instructional Technology at Valdosta State University, I wanted to do my action research on what I believed was missing from the WebQuest after 10 years of use.  My working title was, "Helping the WebQuest through Puberty: What Needs to be Added to the Online Teaching Model."  The proposals I submitted were denied and tweeked, mainly because there was little (ok, there was none) research on the use of RSS, wikis, blogs, and podcasts for educational use in 2005.  My original premise was that students at the middle school level were either missing the necessary cognitive levels or there were steps missing in the original model of the WebQuest.  My hypothesis was based on March's definition of a "true WebQuest" and the experiences I had in facilitating WebQuests in my classrooms.  I was not allowed to pursue my hypothesis, because there was no research or otherwise empirical evidence already in acceptable publication on which to base my theory.  Blogs were not academically sound.  So I created a rather benign action research study on whether WebQuests led to higher level thinking skills in students.  You can read my research here if you are hard up for reading material.

This week Tom has shared his thoughts on the need to revisit the WebQuest in a Web 2.0 culture.  It is an excellent article.  It is the information I was hoping I could research in my action research project, but was denied, due to the "newness of the tools that have no research basis."  So thank you Tom, for updating how the WebQuest format and process combine instructionally sound theories with a student-centered approach to provide a tuly educational experience for students.

Tom has this fantastic ability to combine theory with practice as well as anyone I have ever read.  I had the honor of a two-day seminar with Tom in Rome, Georgia, USA (Shorter College) in 1997 to learn about this new tool - Filamentality, and the WebQuest, Sampler, Treasure Hunt, Scrapbook, and Hotlist. 

Thank you Tom.  I have already begun to take new notes on the WebQuest, thinking routines, and CEQALL.  These are among the things I was trying to get the opportunity to research.  After I left the classroom for the media center, I let it sit.  Now that I am actively pursuing a classroom position again, Tom has given me that intrinsic motivation to learn more and implement my understanding with future students. 

LoTi Framework

LoTi Framework at drchrismoersch.com


I remember hearing about LoTI in 1996 or 1997.  Our school system was advancing quickly in the area of technology use at the time.  When this framework came to our attention, we gave it rather careful consideration.  We had a goal to reach Level 4-5 at our Jr. High School by the year 2000.  Our expectation at that time was for the High School to build on what we were able to do at the Jr. High grades (7 & 8).

In 1996 each classroom had at least one PowerMac for the teacher, but teachers who were showing advancement in the LoTI Framework had more; I had an additional four computers...they were older models of Macs, but they did the trick. 

Dan Buetner was doing MayaQuest, and I secured a grant from our local Educational Foundation to participate.  My students had daily contact with Beutner's Team, and we also studied Central America at that time.  The students were "engaged" (I have decided I don't like that term - it bothers me - we are reaching too much - I prefer interested).  The material was interesting, fun, and doggone it...students liked it.  My point is that a project like MayaQuest was somewhere between Level 4a, 4b (Integration - Mechanical & Routine) and Level 5 (Expansion) for that period of time.  When the 9-12 weeks was over, the students wanted me to find something else like this for them to do.  I tried, and in those days there was not much to go on. 

So we tried CUSeeMe software one morning with Tom March's son's class in Australia.  The video did not work, but the chat did.  We discussed crawdads, Michael Jordan, and some other things.  My students came in at 6:30 in the morning, and the Australian school students stayed late in the afternoon.  It was an attempt at what we now call the Flat Classroom.  We also studied Australia/Oceania in 7th grade Social Studies at that time. 

We were on our way to achieving our goal.  Several teachers were beginning to observe that technology was able to attract and maintain the interest of the students.  More teachers were requesting training, and equipment for their classrooms.  It was a good time of progress.

This week, I went back to review the LoTI Framework.  It has obviously been updated since 1994.  But the Levels are still about the same, only the tools have changed.  I had several colleagues read the description of the levels, and from the several who responded, the consensus is that our school is between Level 1 and 2, with a few observations that in some areas we are at Level 0. 

This causes me to ask some questions...please comment. 

• What happened? 
  
• Why have we made "reverse progress" in technology? 
  
• How could educational leaders allow this to happen? 
  
• Many of the tech-minded teachers have retired (in their 50s) or moved on to other districts.  A couple of teachers retired and are now working for ETTCs. 
  
• New teachers, who are from other districts are disappointed that our school lacks technology that was considered basic classroom material (SmartBoards, LCD Projectors, classroom computers) where they used to be. 
  
• What would you do in this situation? 
  
• Is it worth it to battle in frustration or would you move on for a different setting?
  
• If you were interviewing at a new school, what tech-related questions would you ask of your potential employer?

That's probably too much...answer what you like.