Transformations

Over the holiday season a new Transformer movie appeared. There’s something engaging about the concept of transforming from one concept or shape to another. In education transformations are also quite engaging and worth investigating. This past semester I coordinated two Design Challenges for the Energy Innovation Center in Pittsburgh with schools from the Parkway West Consortium of Schools. Each Design Challenge required the student consultants to think out of the box and come up with a transformative set of ideas.

Student teams from Parkway West, Quaker Valley, and Keystone Oaks tackled the transformative challenge of “Rebranding Careers.” How do we rethink the language and images to describe technical workers? How do we change the perceptions of students and parents regarding the value of alternative choices to a college program? The student consultants developed a website with a marketing campaign, an app, and a video to address the transformative questions.

It was fascinating to watch the student consulting teams go through their own transformations. The student teams had to learn to work with not only their own team members, but with fellow consultants from other schools. The design process of moving from a set of questions to a solution requires an ability to listen to a client’s needs. For most students this is a transformative challenge. Our traditional school approach is based on a teacher-focused orientation. Students respond to the need of the teacher who, in turn is trying to look at a standard or final outcome that is built into a curriculum. What happens when you transform this process? How do teachers and students handle their roles as facilitators and consultants?

For the student teams and teachers it takes time to adjust to this challenge. However, the final product for the Rebranding Careers Design Challenge demonstrated the success for the process. What could have been three individual projects,  turned into one website that linked to each of the student consulting teams ideas. The client team from the Energy Innovation Center responded positively to the student products and intends to seek further funding to work on the prototypes shared by the consulting team.

The Bedford Facade Design Challenge had similar positive effects based on the student consulting teams’ efforts. In this case teams from South Fayette, Chartiers Valley, and Parkway West collaborated to generate a three-tiered lighting plan for the original entrance of the Energy Innovation Center erected in 1930 as the Connelley Trade School. The Design Challenge process I use enlists the aid of a series of professional experts who work with the student consultants from the kick-off through the final presentation. For this Design Challenge the Energy Innovation Center brought to the table two experts from the Duquesne Light Company of Pittsburgh. The experts explained at the kickoff that consultants often outline different financial packages in their response to a Request for Proposal (RFP). The student consulting teams took this to heart and delivered silver, gold, and platinum options for the Design Challenge.

For the student consultants the ability to think about multiple solutions was a transformative moment. In our traditional classes we tend to look for one solution that is already known, but for this Design Challenge the notion that there could be multiple approaches for a problem was quite challenging for the student teams. The client team from the Energy Innovation Center, praised this approach. It met the real needs for the project. Now the Energy Innovation Center has a much better idea on the actual costs and what would be associated with each option.

I also wanted the student teams to use a model for the building as part of their presentation. The students don’t usually think about three-dimensional elements to explain an idea. The team of students from Parkway West welded a metal model that became the key for each consultant as they visually explained how each part of the solution would work. For instance, when the student consultants talked about the use of a Lumatrix lighting solution, they were able to point to the model to indicate exactly where the projection system would go.

The key to the final success for the Design Challenge will be the actual transformation for the Bedford Avenue facade at the Energy Innovation Center. The student consulting teams outlined a thorough proposal that included CAD drawings, a cost analysis, and a 3-dimensional model for the site. The Energy Innovation Center will now look at opportunities to use the student ideas to transform the building to highlight the rich history of the building and its bright future as a center for sustainability.

Real World Learning: Design Challenges

For the past two years I’ve worked with the Parkway West Career and Technology Center (PWCTC) Consortium of Schools and the Energy Innovation Center (EIC) to develop a series of real world Design Challenges. There are some lessons I’ve learned:

  • Identify the students teams as consultants. Make the students aware of the role of a consultant and the importance of addressing the needs of the client. Work with the teacher facilitators to frame the problem in ways that relate to the students and allow teams to work collaboratively.
  • Bring in experts from Day 1. We have each kick-off event at the EIC. Bob Meeder, the CEO of the EIC, arranges for a team of experts, or as he calls them “bosses,” to work with the student consulting teams.
  • Frame the challenge around a Request for Proposal (RFP). In the business world RFPs are the documents that outline the expectations of the client. The consulting team has to address the project based on the client’s needs.
  • Use a human-centered design process to move the project along. I’ve had an opportunity to undergo training through the LUMA Institute. The LUMA framework, developed through a meta-analysis of the best strategies in design thinking, helps to shape the problem more succinctly and provides the focus on the target population.

Visualizing the vote for Concept Posters

Here are some ways I’ve worked these principles into a series of Design Challenges with high school students this fall. To start the challenge the student consultants walk through the Energy Innovation Center and use a LUMA strategy called “Fly on the Wall.” They use the camera on their phones to document everything that they see. At the kick-off they develop questions they need to address based on the RFP. Experts from the business, non-profit, or other arenas, begin to answer the student questions. At the midpoint I bring the students back together. (Between the kickoff and midpoint the student teams work with their teacher facilitators conducting research into the RFP issues. Sometimes the teams get together and other times they go their separate ways.)

For this year’s two Design Challenges I used a LUMA recipe – a combination of strategies – at the midpoint session. For a Food Menu Item Design Challenge where the student consultants from South Fayette, Carlynton, and PWCTC had to come up with their best ideas for the forthcoming EIC Healthy Cafe, I needed a way to identify the best choices. Each student consultant created what LUMA calls a “Concept Poster” for their food item and then had to pitch the idea to their colleagues and a team of experts that included people in the food industries. Each consultant and expert then chose the three best ideas and put dots on the Concept Poster – LUMA’s “Visualizing the Vote.” This combination of strategies narrowed the choices, but there was an issue – could the choices work in a cafe environment in a cost-effective manner? Fortunately, I had a team of student experts who were studying Culinary Arts and their teacher, a chef from the Parkway West Career and Technology Center. The chef with the student consultants then examined the top choices that would be prototyped in the PWCTC kitchens.

Concept Poster to pitch ideas

The second Design Challenge focused on the renovation of an existing space – Innovation Hall- at the EIC. The student consultant teams from Keystone Oaks and Chartiers Valley worked in four teams – lighting technologies, smart technologies, surface technologies, and furnishings. At the midpoint each team developed a “Concept Poster” and then each consultant and expert working on the project responded by placing a red note for a Great Idea, a green note for a promising idea that needed some further thinking, or a brown note for an idea that might not work. LUMA calls this strategy “Rose, Thorn, Bud.” Once the teams received the feedback from the other teams and experts, they had to revise their plan.

In both Design Challenges the LUMA strategies provided great ways to get all students involved in a collaborative manner. The consulting teams had to use communication skills that included visualizing ideas. The teams had to analyze feedback and revise (iterate) their ideas.

We’re not done yet. The final presentations will take place in the next month, but one of the Design Challenges from last year will soon have a ribbon-cutting ceremony.  What’s better than having the student consultants actually see their ideas implemented?

Sharing a prototype

Last year three teams of students worked on the installation of a windmill at the EIC. Consultants from Carlynton High School came up with a very original model using a Hummingbird Kit from Birdbrain Technologies. A second team from PWCTC’s Electrical Studies program devised a storage and power strategy for the RFP, while the third team from West Allegheny developed an educational strategy to instruct visitors at the EIC about wind energy and sustainable energies. In December members from the original Design Team will join Windstax Technologies, key members of the EIC, the mayor of Pittsburgh, and the County Executive of Allegheny County in a ribbon cutting ceremony – a great real world celebration for a challenging real world problem.

A New Year for Educational Technology and Learning Science

I don’t often try to prognosticate, but with some time on my hand, it’s maybe a good time to look at the future of educational technology and learning. With over 40 years of experience in a variety of learning environments – from pre-school to post-graduate – as a classroom teacher, gifted coordinator, and technology coordinator I feel I’ve learned a few things I’d like to share. Along the way I’ve done my share of research as an adjunct faculty member at West Virginia University, the University of Pittsburgh, and Carnegie Mellon University. Here are some key ideas for 2017:

Redesigning Physical Spaces Impacts Learning

ecs

Photo by Norton Gusky CC BY 4.0

From my early days as a classroom teacher for grades 5 and 6 in Pickens, West Virginia I observed how adding tables and moving desks changed the dynamics of classroom instruction. Recently I had a chance to visit the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit (WIU) in Greensburg, PA. The WIU converted a computer lab into a Maker space. Computer desks were replaced by flexible furniture that was grouped into clusters. According to Tim Hamill, the Curriculum Services Director at the WIU, simply changing the furniture created greater interaction at curriculum meetings. Whereas people in the past sat at their desk and seldom volunteered to talk, now there was a different dynamic – people were sharing their ideas in small groups and then providing the small group sentiments to the larger group.

Elizabeth Forward was the  first school district I visited to really embrace the transformation of a library into a digital media space. The library had limited use by students. With the transformed space that included a sound studio, TV studio, and cafe for students to hang out, the digital media space soon became the place for students to study and collaborate. Other schools soon followed in their attempt to make learning more social and informal. Instead of a room filled with tables and desks, schools,  like the Environmental Charter School,  added couches for students to work collaboratively.

Three summers ago I went to the national Flipped Classroom Conference outside of Minneapolis / St. Paul. As I walked around the pre-conference workshops taking photos I realized there was a totally different learning experience happening in the rooms where people sat in rows versus classrooms with clusters of desks or tables. I pointed this out to Aaron Sams, the co-founder for the event. He decided to do his own walking tour and discovered the same pattern.

Providing Feedback Enhances Learning

For years research has shown that one-on-one tutoring is the most effective form of teaching. The English have known this forever and it’s the key to institutions like Oxford or Cambridge. In recent years we’ve turned to computers to make this happen. It doesn’t require technology, but when you have a classroom of 25 or 30 students you need something to help this happen. In my early days of teaching in West Virginia I used peers to make this happen. In the 1970s we didn’t have the technology, but I had students who could work with their peers to address issues while I worked with larger groups of students. At Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)  I had the opportunity to discover the work done by the Cognitive Tutor team that became Carnegie Learning and then the Open Learning Initiative. The Rand Corporation did a major study of the Carnegie Learning system’s math tools and they agreed. Computer based feedback did make a difference. Why? Carnegie Learning, like a good teacher, provided frequent feedback. Students knew when they were successful or they were given suggestions to improve incorrect steps. If the student continued to have a problem, the software found a path where the student had previous success. The role of teacher changes, but does not disappear. The software makes the feedback loop quicker and provides data for the teacher to then make decisions about the student learning.

At CMU I discovered a tool, Classroom Salon, developed by Ananda Gunawardena from the Computer Science department and David Kaufer from the English department. The CMU team discovered the power of social learning using data analytics. Classroom Salon allowed instructors to flip the learning. I could have students read articles, view videos, or interpret graphs ahead of class. I could use the information as feedback about what students already understood or needed to learn.

Personalized Learning Creates Deeper and More Engaged Experiences

From my early days of teaching I quickly discovered that when you provide choices to students, you change the learning dynamic. When I first started teaching we called it “Individualized Instruction.” As a teacher I made the choices for students. During my tenure at the Fox Chapel Area School District (FCASD) as the Coordinator of Education Technology we focused on Differentiated Instruction. Again it was about the teacher determining the best groupings and opportunities for students. In both cases I knew there were some positive gains, but something was missing: student agency. While teaching at CMU I had a chance to teach a course where I focused on Personalized Learning using Technology. I came across the work of Barbara Bray and Kathleen McClaskey. They honed in on the differences between what I had seen and where personalized learning really could go when you let the learner make their own choices.

Today the Summit Public Schools with a little help from their friends at Facebook have created software to move in this direction. Was it possible to differentiate without software? Yes, but the number of hours and amount of energy necessary is overwhelming. At FCASD I worked with a team of educators who were part of a project called ALEM (Adaptive Learning Model) from Temple University. The program had many merits, but it was not scalable. Today with technology we have the possibility to make learning truly personalized, but we have to start with the understanding that the learner must be in control of many of the choices. For younger children teachers, parents, and other supports will be part of the process. Even at the college level there are needs for supports. However, if the learner doesn’t truly have responsibility for their learning, the learning is not intrinsic. Again we have years of research to indicate the value of intrinsic learning.

Becoming a Creative Producer Should be the Goal

robotzoo

Photos by Norton Gusky CC BY 4.0

While working West Virginia I came across the work of Seymour Papert. I become a Logo convert. I believed every child could construct their own knowledge and use the computer as part of the process. Today we call this computational thinking. I’ve been fortunate to see how the South Fayette School District has used Computational Thinking to empower student learning.

Today we are moving towards Design Challenges where teams of student consultants solve real world problems. Each team takes on a role based on the challenge. The student consultants work collaboratively to creatively produce a product that solves a real-world problem. I’ve worked the past year with the Energy Innovation Center and Parkway West Career and Technology Center to coordinate a series of Design Challenges. I have observed students at work at Hummingbird Makeathons, where older students are challenged to create robotic pets to interact with younger children. I’ve seen the value for all types of students. I’ve always believed that what I did as a Gifted Coordinator was applicable for all students. Build on student successes and interests! Let every student become a creative producer.