To Auf, or Not to Auf: A Lesson in Communication

Watching the latest episode of Project Runway (hey, don’t knock it ’til you’ve tried it) made me think about project-based learning and the importance of communication of grading practices.

For those who don’t know, Project Runway is Heidi Klum’s challenge-based reality show where one day you’re “in”, and the next day you’re “out” (or “Auf’d!” as we say based on the German-born host’s good-bye catchphrase). Pitting upstart fashion designers against each other, the 18-week run showcases one elimination per week, creating a sewing fight to the finish where only 1 designer can end up on top.

Normally, I end up watching the show through the lens of project-based learning and performance assessment. It’s not really much of a stretch:

• Given parameters for a task, designers make a plan (for an outfit), gather resources to execute that plan, and develop the final product of a runway-ready outfit – usually within two days or so from soup to nuts.
• The final product gets assessed by a panel of fashion professionals, who judge the outfit accoding to some specified criteria along with their own professional opinion.
• These panelists provide each “Top 3” and “Bottom 3” designer with both commendations and critical feedback. Through deliberation, they then choose one designer as the winner, and one to be Auf’d.
• Every designer who has participated – whether they continue on or not – has ideally learned more about the skills and understanding it takes to make it in this business.

This panelist interaction highlights for me the distinctions between tests and assessments, between feedback and grades. These terms get thrown around and conflated in education all the time – I thought maybe that applying them to this show would be a helpful way to distinguish them. Here’s how the analogy works for me:

• Test = The task given to the designers
• Assessment = Observation of the products that resulted from this task, and judgement of the relative quality of that product
• Feedback = The process of sharing these observations and judgements, while potentially suggesting some changes for future endeavors
• Grade = In this case, a norm-referenced rating: Winner of the challenge, Top 3, “Safe” in the middle, Bottom 3, “Auf’d”.

Fast-forward to this past week. (SPOILER ALERT, for those who care about that kind of thing.) In episode 7, the task was to make a design that fit into an existing collection developed by Lord & Taylor, a reputable fashion company. After completing the challenge, the runway walk revealed the 9 designers’ dresses – all of which were pretty good. I didn’t think there was a “bad” one in the bunch.

Apparently, the judges felt the same way: they decided that everyone “met par” on the challenge, and no one was Auf’d. The decision made perfect sense to me, but I’m a standards-based addict. The response from Christopher (a contestant on the show):

Because these contestants are used to a certain norm-referenced grading scale – Winner, Top 3, “Safe”, Bottom 3, “Auf’d” – they will react negatively if the scale gets changed on them somehow. They will consider any decision based on that change to be “unfair”, even if it is the fairer thing to do.

Something to keep in mind for all of you starting up the school year with new ways of assessing and grading (standards-based or otherwise): make sure you’ve communicated the change and its rationale before acting on the change. Otherwise, your kids will likely respond just like Christopher did.

Flip On the Tube! 5 Made-for-TV Video Sites for Science Instruction

This is the third in a series of blog posts, collecting links to websites that contain some interesting videos for teachers looking to “flip their classroom” without starting from scratch.  (For more on what it means to flip a classroom, see Monday’s introductory post.)  For each site below, I have tried to summarize by including information about

• content areas collected on the site,
• the intended grade level/age of viewers, and
• the type/style of video (e.g. lecture with written notes, music video, made-for-TV)

There should also be an example video posted along each title.  Between the description, the links, and sample video, you should end up with a pretty good idea of what you’re getting into.  (Note: after being organized into categories, these sites are listed alphabetically by title, not based on any evaluation of relative quality.) 

Made-for-TV Videos

Mythbusters http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters/

Content Areas: Scientific process skills and engineering around a variety of topics

Intended Age Group: Most clips would be all right for ages 8+, though be sure to screen topics accordingly

Style of videos: Problem-focused vignette as two (or more) people try to design a solution

Sample video: Dimpled Car MiniMyth

 

Description: Mythbusters Jamie & Adam are at it again!  As most know, these two (and their newly-formed team) challenge widely-held beliefs of all shapes and sizes, using science to debunk myth.  Discovery.com has collected over 1,000 clips from the show on their website.  The clips- ranging from 60 seconds to 5 minutes- could serve a great purpose as a focusing tool, or as a model for engineering, problem-solving, or investigation.  The downside: the clips on this site are not really organized in any way.  To find something of value to you in your classroom, be ready to do some searching and some bookmarking.

NBC Learn http://www.nbclearn.com/

Content Areas: Physics (Science of NFL Football, Science of the WInter Olmpics), Chemistry (Chemistry Now!), and Earth Science (The Changing Planet)

Intended Age Group: I’ve used these resources with students as young as 3rd grade, as old as 12th.  

Style of videos: What you might expect in a feature story on the news- interviews, stock footage, telestrated explanations over video.

Sample video: The Chemistry of Chocolate

Description: The team at NBC News got collected, produced, and archived these resources for the K-12 classroom.  The subject matter of each collection puts the content into a context that matters to kids.  (My pesonal favorite: Science of the Winter Olympics!)  A select few videos (about 100 altogether) are free for use in classrooms, while the rest of the collection require a subscription.

One interesting tidbit: NBC Learn uses a media player called a Cue Card™ that supports various media besides video.  It is also “flippable”:  like a flash card, the media player provides bibliographic information, clickable keywords and a citation generator on the back, and a full transcript along the side.

SportScience http://search.espn.go.com/sports-science/videos/6

Content Areas: Mostly physics, though several touch on biology- or chemistry-related topics

Intended Age Group: Like NBC Learn, I have used these with all ages of student.

Style of videos: TV scientists pose a question, and measure data from athletes’ performance in order to answer the question

Sample video: Jayron Hosley – Reaction Time and Speed

Description: John Brenkus and the SportScience team mix Mythbusters with SportsCenter to bring SportScience, a show that digs into the science behind the world of sports.  In most situations, the clips consist of Brenkus posing a question about an athlete: “How does Rory McElroy drive the ball so far off the tee?”  “How fast is Jayron Hosley?”  “Can Chicago Bear Devin Heser outrun a real bear?”  The team then goes into data collection mode, strapping high-tech probes and tracking equipment to the athlete in order to study his/her movements.  The data is then analyzed in order to try and answer the initial question.

ESPN has collected about 100 3 to 5 minute clips on their website.  Unfortunately, like the Mythbusters site, the organizational structure of this site leaves a bit to be desired- teachers will need to be ready to spend a little time digging here to find just the content they need.  (Be sure to bookmark it in some way once you find it!)

Time Warphttp://dsc.discovery.com/tv/time-warp/time-warp.html

Content Areas: Bit of a mixed bag, though there is a lot of physics.

Intended Age Group: Generally for older viewers, though I think everyone could be easily awed by the super high-speed camera.  Given that explosions and fire are often a topic of conversation, be wary of the clip in its totality before assigning it.

Style of videos: Hosts Jeff Lieberman and Matt Kearney pose questions, and then film subjects with a super high-speed camera in order to see events in super slow motion (which hopefully helps to answer the question at hand).

Sample video:  Nucleation in a Soda Geyser

Description: Like SportScience, Time Warp digs into the science behind that which happens too quickly for our eyes to see.  Through the use of a high-speed camera, the hosts are able to capture many more frames per second than your average video camera, allowing us to receive much more information about what really happens in the blink of an eye!  The site has two different video sets.  One set of 20 videos from HowStuffWorks.com goes into more of an explanation for phenomena like bubbles, rockets, and fire walking.  The other is a collection of interactive videos where the user controls the speed and direction of the playback- perhaps to answer a question of his or her own!  While these vids may not be of enough substance to fly as flipped videos on their own, the interactive videos might cool enough of a resource to be used in the classroom during application time.

Twig Science http://twig-it.com/

Content Areas: Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics

Intended Age Group: These have different videos for all ages of students.

Style of videos: Most I have seen are documentary-style, with a single speaker scripted over archived footage from the BBC, NASA, etc.

Sample video: How Hot is the Earth’s Core?

Description: Twig Science is a company based out of the UK advertised as providing “outstanding short films on science…made with teachers, for teachers.”  They are not lying.  The videos I have seen are short (usually no more than 3 minutes or so), and outstanding in quality and clarity.  As described about BrainPop in yesterday’s post, Twig Science also offers several supplementary resources that could be used in conjunction with these videos, including sample lesson plans, checks for understandings, The organizational mindmap is an impressive feature, as well.  Also like BrainPop, Twig Science is a paid site.  The free videos give a taste of what’s inside (including a nice categorization between “Core Concept” videos and “Extension” videos), but to get full access, there’s a fee involved.

 

———-

If you know of any other resources that fit this description, please share them in the comments boxes.  Happy flipping!

Don’t forget your units, Mr. Schue!

During the opening scene of tonight’s episode of Glee, I was met with the most recent “shout at the TV” moment.  (P.S. Here’s a Tumblr with an appropriate caption.)  Here’s what I imagine must have been written in the screenplay (along w/my italicized internal monologue):

 

INT. HIGH SCHOOL CHORUS ROOM – DAY

Open scene on whiteboard.  Close-up on MR. SCHUESTER’s hand as he writes what appears to be a math problem across the board:

5,000 x 0.25 = 20,000

(My eyes are stuck on the board.  Do they know that this should equal 1,250?)

MR. SCHUESTER puts the cap on the marker, and turns to face the class…

(I cannot look away, and I can’t hear anything that anyone is saying.  Awaiting the impending correction from the students in the room.  There is no correction.  Awaiting him using this “silly mistake” to build a metaphor for something larger.  There is no metaphor.  Maybe he’ll have some clever way of jarring the kids to think differently about a problem they have.  There is no clever plot twist.  Wait…I think he’s walking to the board- maybe he’s going to make that big point to the kids now…)

MR. SCHUESTER (pointing at whiteboard)

It’s easy, see?  We need five thousand dollars, times a quarter a piece, means we need to sell…20,000 pieces of saltwater taffy!

MR. SCHUESTER turns around, unwraps a piece of taffy, and pops it in his mouth.  (No reference to our little math snafu.  I am Jack’s Complete Lack of Surprise.)

END SCENE.

 

In all seriousness, here’s what I assume Ol’ Schuey was trying to convey (once again highlighting the need for units with your numbers):

Not necessarily 2+2, but also not exactly rocket science, either…so what gives?  I mean, I kind of understand it when I see a show like ER has some inconsistent medical science in it, or when CSI propagates common misunderstandings in science (like the idea that a car’s rubber tires make it safe during a thunderstorm- check out these guys from Top Gear if you’re looking for the “real” explanation on this).  It doesn’t make me too happy, but I get that these kinds of things sometimes fall through the cracks.  But to have something like this go unchecked?  I’m lost for words.

Do any of you have any of these kinds of jaw-dropping “STEM misconceptions in pop culture” moments to share?  I’m looking for more reasons to break out the discomfort of this “Oh, no, they didn’t” laugh.

There Are No Repeats

I found myself flipping through the channels this evening, looking for something interesting to watch.  Wading through the multitude of offerings that is modern-day cable television, I ran across The Graduate playing on AMC.  A thought ran through my head: this is a classic.  While I have not seen the film in upward of a decade, I do remember admiring its complicated narrative, its intricate cinematography, its nearly perfect soundtrack. The TV info bar validated my thought, with 4 stars stamped next to the title.  I quickly recalled a recent viewing of (500) Days of Summer, which referenced the movie in what I thought to be an intriguing way.  All of these factors coalesced into a desire to tune in and watch the film again.  

Quickly, my mind then contradicted my impulse, reminding me that I had already seen this film and shouldn’t waste my time.  We have but one life, after all- why take any portion of that precious little time watching something I have already seen?  Just at that moment, I had a thought so compelling that I felt it necessary to obey those impulses and watch the film:

I have never experienced this film.

The above statement may come across as a bold-faced lie, a complete contradiction to every word that preceded it.  But I believe it to be absolute truth.  And yes, I do remember seeing the film.  Oddly, I remember that night like it was yesterday.  I was a college student, living in a friend’s apartment over a summer between leases, working in a record store and writing album reviews for a local magazine.  Just before going to bed at some ungodly hour, I saw Dustin Hoffman’s face flash across the TV screen and thought, “Is this The Graduate?  People say this is good- I might as well see what the big deal is.”  I really enjoyed it, and have since brought up its multifaceted closing scene in multiple contexts.

So then, why would I say that I have never experienced this film?  If we consider our true selves to be a conglomeration of our past experiences, then the me who exists today has not taken in this film.  Since the night I watched this movie, I have traded in the student role for that of a teacher.  I graduated college, and have since helped students on their path to get there.  I have moved three times, and changed jobs twice.  I have fallen in and out of love multiple times, and have now found someone with whom I look forward to spending the rest of my life.  We have two dogs, two car payments, and a mortgage.  And, perhaps less importantly but just as true, I have since seen (500) Days of Summer, as well as dozens of other films and stories that have referenced this movie in some way.

In short, the me who exists today- he who has lived through these times and countless others- has never experienced this film.  What will I pick up on today that I would have never noticed when I first saw it all those years ago?  It dawns on me today that there are no repeats: tonight’s experience will be wholly different, because I am different (as is the world around me as I interact with it).

Teachers, I hope you will keep this apparent contradiction in mind the next time one of your students looks at you and says, “I did this already in (insert grade here) – why should I do it again now?”

Learning as a Mash-Up

I’m a sucker for music mash-ups.  Whether it’s one of the more prominent early mash-ups pairing Nirvana & Destiny’s Child, a reworked Beatles record backing Jay-Z’s lyrics (careful with the language on that one), or even a new video from those crazy kids from Glee, consider me hooked in. Though the trend may not be as viral as it was when the novelty first arose in the early-’00s, the practice still strikes a chord in me, as I get down on making “new” ideas by putting two “old” ideas together when they fit.

In the introduction to Chip & Dan Heath’s Made to Stick, the authors describe their book as a complement to one specific section of Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point: “In [our] book…we will identify the traits that make ideas sticky, a subject that was beyond the scope of Gladwell’s book [in the chapter, “The Stickiness Factor”].”  Their description made me think: what would a mash-up of these two books look like?  If I could make a flexbook that switched from the words of Gladwell to those of the Heaths right at the opportune moment, what would that do for my learning?

I started a mindmap using bubbl.us to chronicle the start of some of these contextual connections between the two books.  While the Heaths’ suggestions about making ideas “sticky” greatly appeal to me in terms of shifts in practice (probably a reflection for another post sometime), building this map has me wondering about the next steps related to this “mash-up” idea:

• Does anyone out there know of a similar “companion text” that might go into more detail related to “The Law of the Few” or “The Power of Context,” the other two focal points in Gladwell’s book?
• Has anyone seen any real-time flexbook makers for making connections/combinations such as these? While I could dissemble my copies of these books and rebound them, I’m feeling as if there must be a tech tool that might help me in this kind of process.

 

More Wisdom from Pop Culture – Let’s Build a Filter

In my work, I’ve often reverted to analogies between any current situation and something I have seen or heard elsewhere in pop culture, in that I feel I can learn a lot about ‘what to do’ through the comparison.  As a physics teacher, I frequently referenced one specific scene from Apollo 13 with my students as an exemplar in the problem-solving process.  Now, in a different role in school administration, I look back on this example as equally important to remember in helping to organize a system.  (I’ve edited the video in this link using Splicd to include only those 30 seconds that apply to the blog.)

“Those CO2 levels are going to be toxic.”  The team member starts out by recognizing a problem, and stating it clearly for everyone else on the team to hear.  Prior to this section, the rest of the team has laid out each of these challenges that they have recognized in developing a solution to this problem.

“Well, I suggest you gentlemen invent a way to put a square peg in a round hole…rapidly.” The organizational leader has responded to the problem at hand with a goal for the team- a goal that has all of the characteristics of a SMART goal.  It’s specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely…all in 15 words.

The team dumps all of their assets out on the table.  Team Leader: “We’ve gotta find a way to make this [square filter] fit into the hole for this [round filter] using nothing but that [stuff on the table].” One of my favorite parts of this scene, the NASA team has collected everything available to the astronauts out in space and put it out on the table.  In physics problem-solving, we called that action, “Listing our givens,” or being really clear about what we know, and what tools we have available to us. Too often, I notice groups focusing all of their time on those first two steps above (identifying challenges and articulating a goal) without acknowledging the current state of “what we’ve got available to us.”

Team member: “Let’s get it organized.”  This one ‘throw-away’ line is my FAVORITE part of the entire scene, in that I think it is the most crucial for the team’s success.  There are myriads of ways to use this ‘stuff’ that the team has laid out on the table, but those pieces won’t necessarily do the team any good until they have been able to ‘see everything that they have.’  

More importantly, each of these assets is currently on the space shuttle because it was made to serve a specific purpose.  The team is going to have to ‘think differently’ about the stuff if they will be of any use in this re-purpose.  At any organizational crossroads, most of the assets available in the ‘current state’ currently serve a completely different purpose than that which they might be used for in the future, and it might be more important to use this asset to respond to the immediate challenge.  Being clear about the implications of any given change keeps the team thinking ‘big-picture’ while building a solution.

I’m always looking to learn: What are your ‘Words of Wisdom from Pop Culture?’  When have you learned something new about the problem-solving process by seeing someone else go through it on screen?  Feel free to share through comment below.