Curriculum Compacting for magnetic students

Curriculum Compacting
for "magnetic" students
There have been many times in my teaching career that I wished my students were as malleable as magnets, and that I could perfectly match their polarity to what they needed and the new knowledge would "stick" right where it was meant to go. However, students are much more complex than this, and although they often exhibited a variety of "attractions" towards various topics or even each other, it was not always a simple task to connect them to the intended content of a lesson. I needed to consider both the individuals "polarity" as well as how he or she interacted with a particular group of "polar" individuals to insure that the overall alignment of the group was parallel and not perpendicular to the intended learning. However, like magnets, some individuals were stronger and easier to align with the learning than others may be. These individuals had a greater alignment of previous experience to the intended concepts much like magnets with stronger magnetic fields may have been formed under conditions that increased their strength. So, what I needed was a way to quickly match these new portions of a unit to the better prepared students while working to increase the magnetic strength of the remainder so that the new knowledge would "stick" better. However, I still had planning issues centered on this strategy. For example, after feeding these strong magnets what they needed to further comprehend this concept, then what additional challenge would I give them with the remaining time?
Curriculum compacting offers an opportunity to target specific portions of a learning unit to build upon previous knowledge that overlaps with objectives of a unit of study. It can give a learner a step over the previously learned material to get to those higher-motivational areas of the content that offer new growth opportunities. The refinements and wider variety of options for higher level learning make this strategy particularly effective for certain gifted students. However, it demands a cautionary approach.
Throughout the phases of compacting, teachers must be careful to insure not only that the learner encounters adequate challenge and motivation, but that he or she really learns the relevant content. In addition, the learner will gain some additional time that should not be wasted. The proper use of this additional learner time should reflect a synthesis of both content objectives and learner interests. Achieving this synthesis can be a complex process so individual teachers should seek additional input from gifted specialists or curriculum experts for maximizing student learning. Compacting itself can increase motivation for gifted students, but one must be careful not to alienate the mainstream peers from any highly visible enrichment activities. A careful balance and evaluation are both necessary for this strategy to function effectively for all constituents.
An important distinction should be made, however, between compacting curriculum and acceleration. The rate of delivery may vary slightly within the compacted curriculum, but compacting primarily involves eliminating repetitive content for a learner. In contrast to acceleration, compacting offers the opportunity to flexibly expand and compact curricular units throughout the school year without a student losing the social context of his or her peers. For students who have deeper readiness in particular curricular areas, this strategy is much more preferable to full grade-level acceleration. However, if a student shows particular need for compacting in most areas, then acceleration might be a better option. In any event, comprehensive pre-testing is essential to assess the proper direction for any particular student.
As our magnets gain strength and experience, they can affect a wider range of materials in the same manner that a learner has the capability to convey his or her new knowledge to a broader audience. By asking students who receive compacted curricula to consider options that extend their learning to others in some way, some of the additional time may be utilized to encourage student service. Compacting may be necessary, but should not be considered as a method for gaining the reward of "free time" for all gifted or advanced students. By carefully balancing the amount of student choice with a set of options for contributing to the field in the compacted content area, the curriculum compacting strategy will fulfill an even wider function. Our young "magnets" can help to extend their influence to others, helping to advance knowledge and even strengthening their own "polarity" in the process.
Compacting within the classroom offers flexibility to move various learners into or out of the compacted unit depending on their readiness, interest, or learner profile. It can be a very effective differentiation strategy. However, not all magnets will stick together with others unless their polarities are properly aligned. In the same light, learners must be re-evaluated for each new concept so that their need for compacted curricula can be assessed. Our "compass" for this process is a high quality pre-assessment along with formative assessments as frequent course checks throughout a unit. Compacted curriculum must still contain adequate structure for continuing assessment. Without a process for checking the compass to see how our "magnets" are aligned, we may get "off course". Students in a compacted curriculum will still need authentic feedback on their progress towards content objectives. As long as we share our compass readings with them on a frequent basis, our compacted instruction will continue to keep them on a steady course.
To compact curriculum for gifted students an educator must have a thorough knowledge of content objectives, learners, and the technical details involved in the implementation process. Pre-assessment is a critical key for determining the use of the strategy as well as appropriate formative assessment of the ongoing learning. The banked time must also be carefully planned so that it both motivates and maintains authenticity within the scope of the intended content objectives. Curriculum compacting is an "attractive" strategy, but one that requires frequent compass checks to keep our developing "magnetic students" moving parallel to our curricular goals. Keep your magnets carefully aligned and your content will not only stick, but gain strength in the process.

Giving the right gift

Which gifts to give?
SAC or Socratic Seminar
Do you remember birthday parties from your childhood? In the "old days" before gift cards, each of us would have to shop around and purchase a gift for our friends on their birthday. We would have to consider what they liked, what they wanted, and what we could afford to buy. We also would have to look around and see what was available and eventually choose a gift that would match what we wanted to give our friend. A wise choice would show that we knew the person well and that we valued him/her as an important part of our lives. A further personal touch in a gift allowed for anticipation of future growth in the friendship. (What message, then, does a gift card give?) As educators, we often have to make the same types of decisions when we plan lessons for our classes.
Choices, choices, choices...how do we make the right ones for our students? In choosing to have students work cooperatively on a controversial task, instructors have two popular choices: Structured Academic Controversy or Socratic Seminar. But which strategy is the most appropriate for a particular learning task?
In Socratic Seminar, the entire group begins with the same text and then explores interpretations and divergent areas that may lead to insight about its meaning and application. The free exchange of ideas between group members is meant to elicit higher levels of thinking in Bloom's taxonomy. Through this exchange, each member may gain the perspective of how his or her view of the text may be either more singular or pluralistic in reference to a peer group.
In SAC, on the other hand, both groups may research their own resources, but must be willing to exchange these to offer their peers an opportunity to explore the reverse position. By requiring each half of a group to argue for and against both sides of a potential controversy, they gain the experience of synthesis of an argument twice, as well as a forced perspective and point of view that may be antithetical to their own. However, it is the final step that distinguishes SAC from Socratic Seminar in that the group, albeit a small one, must come to some type of consensus at the conclusion of SAC. This is not a requirement of Socratic Seminar.
Now, with this brief background, an instructor must first decide if he or she wants or expects the learners or participants to come to a consensus about a topic or idea. If not, then Socratic Seminar may be more appropriate. However, the consensus required in SAC may be considered arbitrary or temporary until the group has additional time to research a topic in more detail, so it could also be used as a springboard for further research. Socratic Seminar, on the other hand, could be used to explore a wider diversity of perspectives that may be present in a larger group or to highlight particular aspects of a choice or decision that offer more than two choices. In these complex situations, the Socratic Seminar may not offer a consensus, but can be quite successful at providing the raw material for the various constituents of a complex concept.
The need for diverse perspectives could also determine which of these two cooperative learning strategies is most effective in a particular situation. If one of the learning goals is to explore the widest possible variety of options, then Socratic Seminar may provide this wide view. If, however, one wishes to delve much deeper into two particular perspectives, then SAC will be the better choice. In either case, the quantity of perspectives or amount of depth will depend at least in part on the learners and the scaffolding provided by the instructor, so the amount of perspective and intended depth should be carefully considered prior to implementation of either strategy.
Similar consideration should be given to the amount of interactive social skills necessary to achieve the maximum level of Bloom's taxonomic thinking. Both strategies can get learners to higher levels, but SAC will require the teams to utilize sophisticated argumentative skills based on particular types of data, while the Socratic seminar may allow for more personal testimonies during group interaction. SAC typically stresses the researched amount of support for various positions and complexities of each side of a topic, while Socratic seminar may allow for more singular interpretation of particular portions of a common text. In terms of the Six-hats strategy, the SAC leans more towards the black and white hats, while the Socratic seminar allows more red, green, and yellow. Both would offer opportunities for blue hat thinking, although SAC requires Green hat synthesis in its consensus as well as particular analysis of both positions from a third higher perspective. Socratic seminar allows blue hat thinkers to collect and interpret a wider variety of positions or ideas, but may not necessarily encourage as much green hat thinking beyond what is presented in the text.
Furthermore, a SAC typically lends itself well to a topic with two strong opposing positions, while Socratic Seminars are usually utilized as a method to explore a variety of interpretations of one particular text or idea. As an instructor, one should consider carefully the goals and objectives of a particular topic prior to placing one's students into either strategic path. In terms of today's modern world, we could consider SAC as more digital in nature with two particular polarizing positions, while Socratic Seminar is more analog with a flowing stream of fluctuating ideas. Both have a place in cooperative learning, but one must choose wisely to insure that there is a good fit for the one who is "gifted"... One must give the best gift that keeps on giving, and if it fits, then the celebration of learning will continue and grow. Now...who wants cake and ice cream?

HATS off to Technology

As former president of the Von Braun Astronomical Society, I was often asked which telescope was the "best" to buy or use. A query such as this always brought a smile to my face as I casually explained that this question could not be answered without knowing both who was using the telescope and what they wanted to see with it. The point that I made (other than the one on my head…), was that any type of technology, even one as simple as an optical system, could not be evaluated on an absolute scale. It must, in short, be judged by how well it meets the needs for which it is being used. The "best" telescope is the one that will be used the most by the observer to learn about the night sky. To do this, it must be the "right" telescope for the observer’s purposes. In the same "light", this "view" could be extended to include all types of technology, especially in the field of education. To examine technology in education, we should sit down and take off our HATS…

Now, having lived for many years in the town where NASA began, I think I can safely point out that NASA is often read as "Need Another Silly Acronym". It is true that if we can take something long and distill it down, we can get a "cute" reference to use for more "efficient" communication. So, in that light, what I propose for evaluating technology is a system of HATS, or a Heuristic Academic Technology System. By creating a model heuristic of how technologies will function effectively as a system within an academic or educational setting, we can gain greater insight into the directions to pursue with technological educational enterprises. The following are some of my six HATS for technology:

White Hat (Facts): Technology is pervasive in life and will continue to become more integral into the lives of everyone. Connectivity and the information age are here to stay and provide unparalleled potential access to information and each other across digital domains. The pace of technology integration and implementation is accelerating, requiring more training and technology-based skill sets for people to function effectively in any endeavor.

Red Hat (Emotional): The pace of technology use and integration is both exciting and frightening. The anxiety that accompanies such rapid change is unavoidable. The potential is great for both positive and negative results with students or education in general. However, one can not stand still or he/she will be left behind. An increase in fluidity of educational practice and the erosion of authoritarian knowledge centricity within an educator have provided significant sources of anxiety in the education community.

Black Hat (Analytic): The loss of control over some content and the impact on the personal relationships between teacher and student are major concerns. The benefits for using the technology in any area have not been adequately documented via research methods. How much experimentation should we undertake on our children through technology use? Every minute spent in front of a computer is one lost to develop other skills or relationships.

Yellow Hat (Positives): The ability to connect and collaborate has been significantly enhanced via technology. The drudgery inherent in some tasks can be eliminated such that students can focus on higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. The variety and diversity of technological options allows for a much wider and deeper set of expression modalities for students and teachers. The ability to publish out to a larger audience will provide a far greater audience than just the classroom community.

Green Hat (Creatives): A new synthesis of ideas can be created online that is far greater than could have been possible before. This new collective consciousness can dovetail creative and innovative ideas together in much greater and deeper methods than ever before. This technological connectivity may change us as a species to become more digitally collaborative.

Blue Hat (Evaluation): What will be the overall cost in terms of each advance of technology. Every advance means me must leave something behind. We must be cautious not to leave behind our values. Will we cultivate the wisdom necessary to know how and when to pursue technologies for human benefits today and in the future? We must not lose sight of the fundamental philosophical and theoretical principles of human society or our own existence as a human culture could be threatened.

The future: (A few ideas…) What technology would be most helpful to the educator of the future? Perhaps a learning preferences measurement tool, or an "understanding indicator" could be developed such that a person’s brain could be "scanned" to determine both how they learn best and what they really understand or not. The ability to monitor ourselves through technology as we learn will most likely continue to advance such that we may be able to design personal learning systems for every individual. Would this make a teacher obsolete? This is why we must create a good heuristic for the classroom and conduct the appropriate research to determine what human beings will need in the future. The HATS must not be ignored. So, what telescope would I choose? Why the one that gives me the clearest vision of what’s out there, of course.