Using Solution Fluency to Innovate Education
Karen Ann McCay
Introduction
This week my students began their creative writing unit, and while some students are still in the development stage, one student began a rough draft of a Google Slides presentation, which he plans to use as the visual aid for a 21st century satire news program. He plans to present to the class by the end of our creative writing unit as documentation of his speaking and listening standards. Geoffrey, as we will call him, began his satire program this week, with a four-slide segment on North Korea. Geoffrey is a 10th grade special education student with low socioeconomic status, no access to technology at home, no prior access to technology before the 8th grade, and first-year access to a smartphone. He is not a digital native, and he has extensive educational needs in both reading and writing (learning specific disabilities in both as well as a CLD designation). Geoffrey experienced some challenges this week with his assignment, but using problem-solving to overcome his challenges helped him complete the rough draft of a segment on North Korea before anyone else in the class. I never expected a student to write a comedic satire segment in order to document his growth in reading strategies or in accurate summary of texts, but when we're open to students' areas of interest and find creative ways to welcome those interests in the instructional/assessment process, we will increase students' growth.
Challenges & Solutions to Challenges
Geoffrey’s first challenge during any writing unit is prolonged “think time.” He needs much longer deliberation after receiving directions than most same-age peers. After providing verbal and written directions for the first week of our portfolio assignment, and “working the room” to give Geoffrey some “think time,” he called me over. His first concern was what types of writing constituted “creative writing.”
“What do you think I will accept,” I asked Geoffrey.
“I’m not sure . . .” Geoffrey stated.
“What are you thinking of doing?” I led.
“I don’t want to guess wrong.” Geoffrey admitted.
“Why are you trying to trick me into doing your thinking for you today?” I pushed.
Geoffrey smiled and gave in. “It’s stupid . . . but I like those shows where they make fun of the news. Like Trevor Noah. Can I do that? Is that creative writing even though it’s news?”
Then I smiled. “First, that’s not stupid at all; it’s brilliant. Second, yes, it’s very creative writing. Third, I love Trevor Noah, so you’re already ‘knowing your audience’ really well here. All you need to do is think of technology choices, and you’re ahead of everyone.” What I did with my response was validate one of Geoffrey’s hobbies (watching satire news) so he could take his “play time” into the classroom and “take it more seriously” as part of his curriculum (Wagner, 2012, p. 144). Then I validated his thinking so he would stop using negative internal speech and replace it with positive self-speech; he calls himself stupid way too often.
The biggest challenge for me was facilitating good thinking for Geoffrey instead of TELLING Geoffrey; he needed to develop stronger self-efficacy as he developed his own processes to succeed. “Today’s students are incredibly eager to create, and don’t get nearly enough opportunities to do so” in school (Prensky, 2010, p. 149). Even reluctant students like Geoffrey need to express their creativity, and they thrive when allowed to problem-solve independently as they create. As instructors transition to 21st century instruction, we must remember that effective pedagogy is still founded upon relationship-building . . . and perhaps upon support. We must facilitate collaboration/relationship skills in nondigital moments and foster independence for our students in their practical skills to ensure they drive their education at all times.
Another challenge that Geoffrey had during his rough draft process was in the regular need for feedback. Geoffrey called me over after he decided to make a Google Slideshow background visual aid to ask if his technology choice was appropriate; he also wanted to film an episode during the last week of our unit and publish it to his newly-created Youtube channel. Lemov (2015) discusses the process of gradually moving students to higher levels of autonomy during the feedback process (p. 370), but I have not successfully moved Geoffrey toward autonomous creative writing work this year. He needed immediate feedback about his decision. He also needed immediate feedback after finding each crazy fact about North Korea for a slide. Furthermore, he needed feedback about each source for facts to ensure those sources were actually reliable and not “fake news.” He knows after a year with me that he has to state his opinion boldly on each of the matters, and then I will give him corrective feedback so he can grow whether he is right or not, but he needs immediate feedback on skills every class period. His unique educational needs dictate this need and make teaching him similar to coaching elite athletes, who also need immediate feedback after each repetition of a skill. Goodwin and Hubbell (2013) discuss the correlation between coaching elite performers and athletes and teaching successful students because both rely upon constant repetition of targeted skills and specific feedback (p. 154). Perhaps because I am a coach, or perhaps because I chose to focus on Solution Fluency this week, I didn’t mind Geoffrey’s need for feedback because contrary to Crockett, Jukes, Churches (2011), I would argue that feedback and revising should be part of the design stage in creative writing when drafting leads to the final product (p. 25).
Using the Same Technology Tool Again
Until Geoffrey is more comfortable with embedding video and sound clips into Google Slides, I recommend that he continue to use this presentation tool before moving onto other formats to ensure he masters one form of technology instead of bouncing through several formats and mastering none. Primarily, allowing Geoffrey to focus on a few technology options will facilitate development of his problem-solving skills, which are more important than his comfort with diverse technology (Brookhart, 2010, pp. 6-7). Because he has so little experience with technology of any type, his needs are very different than other learners in the 21st century, and he would benefit from mastering a few programs before graduating from high school instead of having several shallow experiences. If he were completely proficient with Google Docs, Google Slides, Google Sheets, Youtube Editor, and Weebly by graduation, he would be more independent than if he had more technology options with less proficiency in each.
Successes
My biggest success with Geoffrey this week was an increase in self-efficacy, which his team-teacher and I both saw by the end of class on Friday. He is a more confident student because he selected his own idea, his own technology, and his own sources. He also completed his entire work plan for the week, and he made his teachers laugh--his jokes were cute, even in the rough draft. Because I facilitated for Geoffrey instead of deciding for Geoffrey, he had to develop his own solutions, and as a result, he also owns the success and confidence because the solutions worked. Sprenger (2010) recommends that students, after using their creativity, will benefit from reflection: “Reflection uses different areas of the brain and allows such overworked areas to get much-needed rest” (p. 134). A reflection to begin next week’s work will help Geoffrey and other students see what gains they made and celebrate those gains. It will also help students refocus after the long weekend, and it will help them rest the creative parts of their brains, which worked in overdrive to complete their rough drafts of their portfolios.
Another success I enjoyed with Geoffrey this week was the example he set for students, who did not finish their work and had to take their portfolios home for homework as a result. Geoffrey got to brag at the end of class on Friday that he had managed his time well, had completed his rough draft, and had no homework because he had maintained his motivation, unlike other peers. He challenged his peers at the end of class to “shape up,” and his peer pressure was the immeasurable motivation, which teachers can’t buy for their students at the end of a long school year.
Conclusion
As teachers modify our practices for a new era of instruction where we still need student-centered instruction and best practices pedagogically, but in which we truly need digital models of content engagement, product development, and even assessment, we need to consider how we will continue to challenge not only our Geoffreys, but also our other students to master their standards while they develop solution-finding skills, creative-thinking skills, and collaboration skills, all of which are the new capital of the 21st century. We don’t have the luxury of teaching “standards alone,” but we never did. We always needed to prepare students for success in a world after education, and nothing has changed about that model--what we need to prepare students for has merely changed in our lifetimes, and we haven’t necessarily changed what we’re teaching. If we want to help our Geoffreys and our other students have significant educational gains, then using solution fluency and other 21st-century learning models is one way to do so.
Below, feel welcome to review Geoffrey's rough draft of North Korea with identifying information and source material removed. I have also attached a chart of brainstorming strategies for using 21st century digital fluencies in a creative writing unit on the secondary level.
Karen Ann McCay
Introduction
This week my students began their creative writing unit, and while some students are still in the development stage, one student began a rough draft of a Google Slides presentation, which he plans to use as the visual aid for a 21st century satire news program. He plans to present to the class by the end of our creative writing unit as documentation of his speaking and listening standards. Geoffrey, as we will call him, began his satire program this week, with a four-slide segment on North Korea. Geoffrey is a 10th grade special education student with low socioeconomic status, no access to technology at home, no prior access to technology before the 8th grade, and first-year access to a smartphone. He is not a digital native, and he has extensive educational needs in both reading and writing (learning specific disabilities in both as well as a CLD designation). Geoffrey experienced some challenges this week with his assignment, but using problem-solving to overcome his challenges helped him complete the rough draft of a segment on North Korea before anyone else in the class. I never expected a student to write a comedic satire segment in order to document his growth in reading strategies or in accurate summary of texts, but when we're open to students' areas of interest and find creative ways to welcome those interests in the instructional/assessment process, we will increase students' growth.
Challenges & Solutions to Challenges
Geoffrey’s first challenge during any writing unit is prolonged “think time.” He needs much longer deliberation after receiving directions than most same-age peers. After providing verbal and written directions for the first week of our portfolio assignment, and “working the room” to give Geoffrey some “think time,” he called me over. His first concern was what types of writing constituted “creative writing.”
“What do you think I will accept,” I asked Geoffrey.
“I’m not sure . . .” Geoffrey stated.
“What are you thinking of doing?” I led.
“I don’t want to guess wrong.” Geoffrey admitted.
“Why are you trying to trick me into doing your thinking for you today?” I pushed.
Geoffrey smiled and gave in. “It’s stupid . . . but I like those shows where they make fun of the news. Like Trevor Noah. Can I do that? Is that creative writing even though it’s news?”
Then I smiled. “First, that’s not stupid at all; it’s brilliant. Second, yes, it’s very creative writing. Third, I love Trevor Noah, so you’re already ‘knowing your audience’ really well here. All you need to do is think of technology choices, and you’re ahead of everyone.” What I did with my response was validate one of Geoffrey’s hobbies (watching satire news) so he could take his “play time” into the classroom and “take it more seriously” as part of his curriculum (Wagner, 2012, p. 144). Then I validated his thinking so he would stop using negative internal speech and replace it with positive self-speech; he calls himself stupid way too often.
The biggest challenge for me was facilitating good thinking for Geoffrey instead of TELLING Geoffrey; he needed to develop stronger self-efficacy as he developed his own processes to succeed. “Today’s students are incredibly eager to create, and don’t get nearly enough opportunities to do so” in school (Prensky, 2010, p. 149). Even reluctant students like Geoffrey need to express their creativity, and they thrive when allowed to problem-solve independently as they create. As instructors transition to 21st century instruction, we must remember that effective pedagogy is still founded upon relationship-building . . . and perhaps upon support. We must facilitate collaboration/relationship skills in nondigital moments and foster independence for our students in their practical skills to ensure they drive their education at all times.
Another challenge that Geoffrey had during his rough draft process was in the regular need for feedback. Geoffrey called me over after he decided to make a Google Slideshow background visual aid to ask if his technology choice was appropriate; he also wanted to film an episode during the last week of our unit and publish it to his newly-created Youtube channel. Lemov (2015) discusses the process of gradually moving students to higher levels of autonomy during the feedback process (p. 370), but I have not successfully moved Geoffrey toward autonomous creative writing work this year. He needed immediate feedback about his decision. He also needed immediate feedback after finding each crazy fact about North Korea for a slide. Furthermore, he needed feedback about each source for facts to ensure those sources were actually reliable and not “fake news.” He knows after a year with me that he has to state his opinion boldly on each of the matters, and then I will give him corrective feedback so he can grow whether he is right or not, but he needs immediate feedback on skills every class period. His unique educational needs dictate this need and make teaching him similar to coaching elite athletes, who also need immediate feedback after each repetition of a skill. Goodwin and Hubbell (2013) discuss the correlation between coaching elite performers and athletes and teaching successful students because both rely upon constant repetition of targeted skills and specific feedback (p. 154). Perhaps because I am a coach, or perhaps because I chose to focus on Solution Fluency this week, I didn’t mind Geoffrey’s need for feedback because contrary to Crockett, Jukes, Churches (2011), I would argue that feedback and revising should be part of the design stage in creative writing when drafting leads to the final product (p. 25).
Using the Same Technology Tool Again
Until Geoffrey is more comfortable with embedding video and sound clips into Google Slides, I recommend that he continue to use this presentation tool before moving onto other formats to ensure he masters one form of technology instead of bouncing through several formats and mastering none. Primarily, allowing Geoffrey to focus on a few technology options will facilitate development of his problem-solving skills, which are more important than his comfort with diverse technology (Brookhart, 2010, pp. 6-7). Because he has so little experience with technology of any type, his needs are very different than other learners in the 21st century, and he would benefit from mastering a few programs before graduating from high school instead of having several shallow experiences. If he were completely proficient with Google Docs, Google Slides, Google Sheets, Youtube Editor, and Weebly by graduation, he would be more independent than if he had more technology options with less proficiency in each.
Successes
My biggest success with Geoffrey this week was an increase in self-efficacy, which his team-teacher and I both saw by the end of class on Friday. He is a more confident student because he selected his own idea, his own technology, and his own sources. He also completed his entire work plan for the week, and he made his teachers laugh--his jokes were cute, even in the rough draft. Because I facilitated for Geoffrey instead of deciding for Geoffrey, he had to develop his own solutions, and as a result, he also owns the success and confidence because the solutions worked. Sprenger (2010) recommends that students, after using their creativity, will benefit from reflection: “Reflection uses different areas of the brain and allows such overworked areas to get much-needed rest” (p. 134). A reflection to begin next week’s work will help Geoffrey and other students see what gains they made and celebrate those gains. It will also help students refocus after the long weekend, and it will help them rest the creative parts of their brains, which worked in overdrive to complete their rough drafts of their portfolios.
Another success I enjoyed with Geoffrey this week was the example he set for students, who did not finish their work and had to take their portfolios home for homework as a result. Geoffrey got to brag at the end of class on Friday that he had managed his time well, had completed his rough draft, and had no homework because he had maintained his motivation, unlike other peers. He challenged his peers at the end of class to “shape up,” and his peer pressure was the immeasurable motivation, which teachers can’t buy for their students at the end of a long school year.
Conclusion
As teachers modify our practices for a new era of instruction where we still need student-centered instruction and best practices pedagogically, but in which we truly need digital models of content engagement, product development, and even assessment, we need to consider how we will continue to challenge not only our Geoffreys, but also our other students to master their standards while they develop solution-finding skills, creative-thinking skills, and collaboration skills, all of which are the new capital of the 21st century. We don’t have the luxury of teaching “standards alone,” but we never did. We always needed to prepare students for success in a world after education, and nothing has changed about that model--what we need to prepare students for has merely changed in our lifetimes, and we haven’t necessarily changed what we’re teaching. If we want to help our Geoffreys and our other students have significant educational gains, then using solution fluency and other 21st-century learning models is one way to do so.
Below, feel welcome to review Geoffrey's rough draft of North Korea with identifying information and source material removed. I have also attached a chart of brainstorming strategies for using 21st century digital fluencies in a creative writing unit on the secondary level.
north_korea.pdf | |
File Size: | 306 kb |
File Type: |
tpack_brainstorming_chart_module_4_critical_thinking_technology_and_innovation_-_google_docs.pdf | |
File Size: | 134 kb |
File Type: |
ICB Method
Visual Fluency
Using TPACK as a Planning Tool
Or Back to:
21st Century Skills
Relationship Teaching Home Page
Visual Fluency
Using TPACK as a Planning Tool
Or Back to:
21st Century Skills
Relationship Teaching Home Page
References
Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to Assess Higher-Order Thinking Skills in your Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Crockett, L., Jukes, L., & Churches, A. (2011). Literacy is not Enough: 21st-Century Fluencies for the Digital Age. Moorabbin, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Goodwin, B., & Hubbell, E. R. (2013). The 12 Touchstones of Good Teaching: A Checklist for Staying Focused Every Day. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Lemov, D. (2015). Teach Like a Champion 2.0: 62 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Sprenger, M. (2010). Brain-Based Teaching in the Digital Age. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wagner, T. (2012. Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People who Will Change the World. New York, NY: Scribner.
Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to Assess Higher-Order Thinking Skills in your Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Crockett, L., Jukes, L., & Churches, A. (2011). Literacy is not Enough: 21st-Century Fluencies for the Digital Age. Moorabbin, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Goodwin, B., & Hubbell, E. R. (2013). The 12 Touchstones of Good Teaching: A Checklist for Staying Focused Every Day. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Lemov, D. (2015). Teach Like a Champion 2.0: 62 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Sprenger, M. (2010). Brain-Based Teaching in the Digital Age. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wagner, T. (2012. Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People who Will Change the World. New York, NY: Scribner.