“We get the most out of an experience (like reading a book or watching a seminar) when we set an intention before we start or if we have a few clear goals around what we hope to learn.” -Zaretta Hammond
With this quote in mind I started reading the material on Culturally Responsive Teaching, or CRT. My goal was to reflect on how I attempt to do this in my classroom, in order to look for opportunities to improve my practice. If anyone reads this, I’d appreciate feedback/constructive criticism/tips on how I might improve. I try to use culturally responsive strategies in my classroom. I think a few of the methods I use in math, for example, are reflected in Hammond’s ideas.To begin, I try to establish a safe, supportive background context. We talk a lot about growth mindset and how I love it when kids ask questions and make mistakes because it shows they are learning. In our community circles, we build trust and respect so that we all feel safe and willing to say when we don’t get something. To begin math lesson, I first introduce concepts to the kids in my own way, up front, on the board with written visuals. When possible, I use manipulatives and encourage them to do so also. I try to stimulate prior knowledge in culturally sensitive ways that link the math lesson to my students past experiences in school and at home. By presenting things in my own way and not straight from the book in the beginning of the lesson, I find it easier to make sure their attention is focused and to interact with them through questions and answers. From time to time I’ll also find “Brain Pop” videos on YouTube that explain the concepts in different, interesting, and orally and visually stimulating ways. I use name sticks to call on random students, after I give “think, pair, share” time for them to talk to each other about the new concepts. We often use student whiteboards for them to work out problems together and then show their answers. I seat my newcomer students next to friends who can explain the teaching to them in Spanish. Sometimes I give key information in Spanish, which 90% of my students understand. I’m conflicted about this because as a bilingual educator I was taught that you should NEVER translate. They say this makes language learners “turn off” when you teach in the target language and only pay attention when they hear their home language. But in the English only context I’m now teaching in, where newcomers just won’t get math concepts in the L2, I do this. It has lead to many “aha” moments. After the introduction, we go to the lessons in the workbooks. Again, we do a few problems from the book together, collaboratively, in an inclusive, whole group setting. When we transition to small group work, where I let students pick their partners in groups of 2 or 3, I bring the newcomers to my table along with other students who need additional support. The group work is effective because many students learn a lot through interaction with their peers. Sometimes I find that it’s hard to explain to third graders the difference between helping another student and letting them copy the answers. Any tricks out there on how to improve this aspect? Another weak point in my teaching may also be how the instruction and students expressions of their understanding is still primarily centered around the workbooks and on getting the answers right there. I think I could focus more on giving multiple forms for students to express their understanding. Any ideas? Another good practice has been to integrate games whenever possible. What we are doing now to support memorization of multiplication facts are flash cards. In groups of three, students test and teach each other the facts. One student shows the cards, and the other two, or sometimes three, compete to say the fact first. They really love it. Then, on their computers, I ask students to practice math facts on Freckle. They earn coins with which they buy clothes to dress their avatars. This is also motivating to the kids. Early finishers get to do this more often, as this is what I ask them to do if they do not want to help anybody else out when they finish. CRT strategies are also in place school wide. Even though we are an English only school, our school has been hiring Spanish speakers. This helps to increase the cultural responsiveness of our school. 85% of our parents speak Spanish at home. Having teachers who are able to communicate with them is important. While I am not latino, I’ve lived in Spanish speaking countries for a total of eight years, and am married to a Paraguayan. I feel like I understand the points that Zaretta Hammond makes about knowing a culture’s values and social patterns. I am able to build authentic relationships with students and their parents. I get their jokes, their education experiences, (which includes the parent-teacher relationship), their music, and their world outlook. Our school has also been very responsive to our English language learners through intervention classes, after school tutoring, and a class for newcomer students. Ironically, it feels like because several of my students are pulled so often to other classes, when they come back to my class they are lost because they come in mid lesson. Depending on the situation, I’ll sometimes ask them to get onto their computers and do self paced learning on programs such as Lexia, Freckle, or Rosetta Stone. But it’s still disjointed from the core learning we are doing in the class. I just hope that what they are doing in their intervention classes are helping them more than if they were to dive into the core instruction happening in my classroom. I suppose this is the biggest question I have after reading and watching this class’ content. In a twist, the minority students in the class this year are actually the two who do NOT speak Spanish. I had an experience a few years back where one family complained that I was using Spanish in the classroom because it made their daughter feel isolated. Due to this pressure, I stopped using Spanish during instruction time. The parents were highly educated and very involved in the school. Their advocacy for their daughter’s feelings carried a lot of weight, and my administrators suggested I cool it on the Spanish. This made sense since we are, after all, an English curriculum school. Still, it did not feel fair in a way since their daughter was extremely high performing academically and had many social and economic advantages. Just one powerful voice had a big impact on the class’ feel that year. What would you have done?
1 Comment
Children are not spending enough time outdoors and it is leading to a wide array of health problems. Richard Louv's book Last Child in the Woods, Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder is a seminal source of information on this topic. One of the causes of the trend is children's increasing use of screen based media in homes. Students are also increasingly using screen based media in classrooms. A movement is happening in the United States, but also in other countries, to get children back into the outdoors, which is very good for their health. A handful of schools are starting to use the environment as an integrated context for learning. Initial studies are showing that these "EIC" schools have better results on both student health and academic performance on standardized tests. As a part of this effort, the use of technology in the form of cameras and nature apps such as iNaturalist have been shown to increase student motivation and involvement in natural settings. But, as Deborah Chavez stated in her 2009 study Youth Day in Los Angeles: Connecting Youth and Nature with Technology, there is a need for more data. I hope to add to the data that shows how integrating digital devices into outdoor education may be beneficial. In my study, I plan to study how my class of 22 third graders interact with nature and each other on two field trips. On the first, no hand held devices will be used. On the second, students will be allowed to photograph plants, insects, and animals with iPads and/or smartphones. I will measure student engagement on both field trips. Observers will record % of students engaged during different parts of each trip. We will also do two nature reports based on each trip. One will integrate the photos the students take at Pepperwood Preserve, and the other will use their drawings and/or paintings. I will measure the quantity and quality of information and language in these reports as well as record student participation/engagement during their making. I hope to discover if the integration of handheld devices enriches students' experience during outdoor experiences. I also hope to discover if subsequent use of images recorded during the trip improves student motivation and quantity/quality of work in related nature reports. To bolster the global level of the background and need section of my research, I have been reading more and more about the health crisis children are going through due to decreased outdoor, unstructured play time, and increased time spent indoors using screen based media. The articles I read show how this trend is happening all over the world.
What perspectives did the three new research articles offer? In the first research article I read, done by the National Wildlife Federation, it was found that in the United States kids devote only 4-7 minutes a day in unstructured, outdoor play, but seven hours a day in front of electronic media. In this article entitled “Whole Child: Developing Mind, Body, and Spirit through Outdoor Play”, I read again about how childhood obesity has more than doubled in the past several decades. It is up to 17.6 percent of kids between 12 and 19 years old. Also, it is 70% likely that obese children grow up to be obese adults. The health risks linked to obesity include high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, sleep apnea, asthma, joint pain, fatty liver, and reduced life span. Also, the Center for Disease Control, or CDC found that there are around 5 million kids who are diagnosed with ADHD. The causes of this are not definitively known, but studies have pointed to things ranging from better diagnostics, chemicals in our food, and increased media usage. While not found to be a cure, researchers in Illinois found that outdoor play may be “widely effective” in reducing its symptoms. The prescription of antidepressants for children has risen sharply. In one four year study, researchers found that over the course of their study, antidepressant prescriptions rose 50%. 2 million children are on antidepressants, and the fastest growing segment of users are 0-5 years olds. In this article they talk about national movements going on to try to reverse these trends. In one 2003 study called “Environmental Education, Improving Student Achievement”, researchers compared 77 schools of similar demographics. Half had environmental education programs and the other half did not. The researchers found that found that on standardized tests, the ones with environmental components scored better in math, reading, writing, and listening. A 2004 study on environment based learning found that 400 students grades 9-12 in 11 Florida high schools were studied to measure the effectiveness of the Environment as an Integrated Context for Learning, or EIC model schools. Again, researchers found that on the Achievement Motivation Inventory, Cornell Critical Thinking Test, and the California Measure of Mental Motivation, EIC programs significantly raised score results. Outdoor play increases physical activity and is associated not only with better test scores, but also a variety of health benefits. It’s been shown to stimulate active imaginations, improve teamwork and problem solving skills, and reduce stress levels. It increases compassion and improves social bonds, promotes positive emotional development, improves vision, and increases muscle fitness, bone strength, and vitamin D levels. Then I re-read parts of a 68 page article by the Children and Nature Network, which seems to fill the same role in England as the National Wildlife Federation fills in the United States. This article is called Children and Nature Worldwide: An Exploration of Children’s Experiences of the Outdoors and Nature with Associated Risks and Benefits. The article provides an evidence base for the importance of children’s and youth’s connections with nature. It looks at many different research studies from around the world. It is a treasure trove of information on the subject. The Outdoor Foundation in Boulder, Colorado did a study in 2009 that had the following key findings: 59% of 6-to 24 year-olds participated in outdoor recreation (defined as having taken part in one or more of 40 activities at least once during 2008). Youth participants made up 34% of all outdoor recreation participants. Participation in outdoor recreation was highest among 6-to 12-year-olds at 64%, declined to 61% for 13-to 17-year-olds, and declined further to 54% for 18-to 24-year-olds. Youth participation in outdoor recreation declined since 2006 in all age groups and among both boys and girls. The rate of decline was greatest among 6-to 12-year-old girls (77% in 2006 versus 58% in 2008). More males participated in outdoor recreation than females (56% versus 44%). More Caucasians participated in outdoor recreation than other ethnic populations (79% versus 7.4% for African Americans). Running, bicycling, and freshwater fishing were the most popular outdoor activities among youth. Parents, friends, and family were the strongest influences in getting younger children to participate in outdoor recreation. 46% of youth reported that lack of time and interest kept them from participating in outdoor activities more often. Youth with nearby walking and biking routes participated in more outdoor recreation (21% more for walking routes and 25% more for biking routes). That’s a good snapshot of what was going on in the USA ten years ago. The Outdoor Foundation. (2010). Special report on youth: The next generation of outdoor champions. Boulder. This report is available online at: http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/research.youth.html Another study, done in England, was done by a group called Play England, on their country’s annual Playday in 2010. Play England conducted a literature review, a qualitative study, and an opinion poll related to community-based play. In the literature review, the researcher discusses evidence related to the benefits of community play, children’s use of community spaces, and attitudes towards children’s use of community spaces. The survey consisted of 1,000 adults and 1,000 children aged 7-14. The data highlights of this study are many. They include that compared to the previous generation, children today have fewer friends they can play with in their neighborhood. Adults reported having an average of 14 friends when they were children, compared to an average of just 6 friends for children today. 79% of adults reported that they believe community spirit has declined since they were children. Children’s ability to play outside is limited due to safety concerns. For example, 49% of adults reported that they do not let their children play outside without an adult. The biggest concern for parents was road accidents. 55% of parents reported that they are concerned that their neighbors might get upset if their children make noise outside. Children are often negatively judged by adults. For example, 24% of children reported that they have been scolded for playing ball games in their neighborhood. People are hesitant to get involved with children in the community. For example, 44% of men reported that they would be concerned about approaching a child who needed help because others might think they were trying to abduct the child. People recognize the benefits of children playing outside for their community. For example, 88% of parents reported that they believe that children playing outside helps community members get to know each other. Playday. Playday 2010 opinion poll survey. Gleave, J. (2010). Making it our place: Community views on children's play. Play England.Gleave, J. (2010). Community play: A literature review. Play England. These reports are available online at: http://www.playday.org.uk/playday_campaigns/2010_theme.aspx In a study done in Australia, researchers found that outdoor play has changed dramatically in one generation. In 2011 Planet Ark surveyed 1,000 adults and children ages 14-65 and found the following results: There has been a huge decline in children’s outdoor play. For example, 73% of respondents reported playing outdoors more often than indoors when they were young as compared to only 13% of their children. They also found that 1 in 10 children today play outside once a week or less.The nature of children’s outdoor play has changed. For example, 64% of respondents reported climbing trees when they were children as compared to less than 20% of their children. Respondents believe in the benefits of outdoor play. For example, 93% of respondents agreed that outdoor play helps children develop physical and motor skills. There are a number of barriers (perceived and real) that impact children’s outdoor play. For example, 33% of respondents reported that crime and safety concerns are a barrier to their child’s outdoor play as compared to 9% who reported that crime and safety concerns were a barrier when they were young. Routine opportunities for outdoor play have declined, such as walking or bicycling to school. For example, 75% of respondents reported that they lived close enough to walk or bike to school when they were children, as compared to just 37% of children today. Planet Ark. (2011). Climbing trees: Getting Aussie kids back outdoors. This report is available online at: http://treeday.planetark.org/about/health-benefits.cfm In the United States again, researchers with The Nature Conservancy found that several factors influence children’s connection with nature. In a nationwide poll of 602 children between 13 and 17, they found the following highlights: Children spend a lot of time engaged in electronic media. For example, 88% of children reported using a computer almost every day, while only 11% of children reported visiting a local park or natural area almost every day. Obese children prefer indoor activities more than children who are not obese and are less likely to have had a meaningful experience in nature. 66% of children reported having a meaningful experience in nature. Children who have had a meaningful experience in nature are more likely to prefer spending time outdoors, express concern about environmental issues, consider themselves a strong environmentalist, and express an interest in studying the environment or pursuing an environmental career. Children most often experience nature with friends (79%), followed by parents (46%) and brothers and sisters (44%). Children reported that feelings of discomfort (bugs, heat, etc.), lack of transportation to natural areas, and lack of natural areas near home were the top 3 reasons why they did not spend more time in nature. Children living in the West are most likely to prefer spending time outdoors, while children living in the Northeast are most likely to prefer spending time indoors. 86% of children said that it is “cool” to do things that protect the environment. The Nature Conservancy. (2011). Connecting America's youth to nature. This report is available online at: http://www.nature.org/newsfeatures/kids-in-nature/kids-in-nature-poll.xml In another study done in the United States and Japan, researchers Oliver R.W. Pergams Patricia A. Zaradic found that there has been a downward trend in visits to National Parks in both countries since their peak between the years 1981 and 1991. Visits have been declining on average 1.3% per year. At the time the study was done, that amounted to a 18-25% total drop. This study shows a fundamental shift away from visits to natural areas, with potentially important implications for health, well-being, and conservation. Pergams, O. R. W., & Zaradic, P. A. (2008). Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(7), 2295-2300. This study is available online at: http://www.videophilia.org/uploads/PNAScomplete.pdf In a Kaiser Family Foundation study done in the United States, researchers focused on children’s consumption of media. Highlights from this study show: From 2004 to 2009, children’s media use increased substantially. In 2004, children spent an average of almost 6.21 hours with media daily, whereas children in 2009 spent an average of 7.38 hours daily with media. When multitasking is taken into account (time spent using more than one form of media at a time), children in 2009 packed nearly 11 hours of media exposure each day into 7.38 hours, an increase of almost 2.25 hours over 2004 levels. Children in 2009 spent more time with every type of media, except for reading, as compared to 2004. For example, children spent an average of 38 minutes more watching TV a day and 47 minutes more a day with music and other audio than they did in 2004. Mobile and online media has facilitated children’s increasing media use. For example, 66% of children in 2009 had their own cell phone, as compared to 39% in 2004, and 76% had an iPod or other MP3 player, as compared to 18% in 2004. How children use media has also changed. For example, cell phones are no longer used just for talking, they are used for listening to music, playing games, and watching TV. Children who spend more time with media report that they receive lower grades and are more likely to report that they are often sad or unhappy as compared to children who spend less time with media. Media use does not seem to impact children’s physical activity. Children who spend more time with media reported spending similar amounts of time being physically active as children who spend less time with media. Children who have parents that limit their media use (e.g., do not put a TV in their bedroom) spend less time with media.11-to 14-year-old children experience a huge increase in media use as compared to 8-to 10-year-olds. For example, 8-to 10-year-olds spend an average of 5 hours and 29 minutes with media, while 11-to 14-year-olds spend an average of 8 hours and 40 minutes with media. Hispanic and Black children spend more time than White children with media (about 13 hours a day as compared to 8.5 hours a day). Rideout, V. J., Foehr,U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-to 18-year-olds. Kaiser Family Foundation. This report is available online at: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia030905pkg.cfm How do they inform your study and methodology? Well, I'm much more convinced now on the importance of integrating tech with outdoor education. The health risks related to children not getting outdoors enough are very, very concerning. I'm increasingly aware that my role as an educator must include providing increasing opportunities for kids to get outdoors and play. While the articles I read this time were not focused on how to integrate tech into this solution, I am more convinced that it does have to be part of the solution. Kids are so familiar with and captivated by technology that we should use it to our advantage in getting kids more healthy. I'm also more willing to conduct surveys with my students and use that data in my research paper. Many of the results from these articles are based on surveys. How do they relate to your driving question? These articles relate to my driving question because they help to provide justification for the kind of study I am involved in. The first article is related to my study because it talks about the success that EIC, (Environment as an Integrated Context of Learning), schools are having success by focusing on the environment and increased outdoor learning. I hope my research bolsters this movement in a very humble, small way. I find myself feeling like I’m on the defensive after reading and watching this content on creativity and the creative mind. I feel like so much of what I do in the classroom is not asking kids to be creative, but presenting and practicing basic skills. I feel like as a school we are focused on the “wax on, wax off” part of the Karate Kid movie where the protagonist has to repeat over and over again a forced, rote skill practice.
I find myself thinking about what a professor said to us in a Native American Lit class in college. He stressed the importance for minorities, like Native Americans, to master correct grammar and writing conventions, or “the code”, if they are to ever be taken seriously by the establishment. I feel we are trying to do this with the minority language learners in our school. We are trying to get them “up to speed” on internalizing and mastering this new code they are confronted with. They do need these basic skill sets in order to thrive in our society. Don’t they? Then I think about technology’s role in this. Is anybody else being bombarded with Grammarly ads on YouTube? This program edits people’s writing. It looks like there is a big interest in this, judging by the number of ads that are being given. It would seem that many people are learning these kinds of grammar skills not as a precursor to producing creative works, but while they do them. My kids also get instant editing in Google Docs while they work on their creative writing. Maybe we should trust the technology to teach many of these skills this while we focus primarily on setting up the context in the classroom that leads to creative collaboration, and creative, pbl projects. The motivating activities create the desire for learning the skills, and the skills are learned “on the fly” as students do creative work. I’m wondering if I should scrap my grammar lessons. Do kids need to know what a subject and predicate are, explicitly? Could I be using our time more wisely if they learn what they are intuitively through their need to communicate their thinking? The technology will increasingly take care of the mistakes in writing. What technology can’t do is be creative in the human sense where we get into that synthesizing and creative mindset that Howard Gardener talks about. Our country has been such a leader in the world up to this point because we have inculcated irreverence in a creative sense. The tech is freeing us up, it would seem, to do even more of this creative work. The tech also cannot teach ethics. In fact, as the Enron and MIT examples show, people can hide behind technology to justify unethical behavior. So a big part of schools should be on teaching this, as well. I’m also glad to report that our school is attempting to do this through our focus on restorative justice and restorative circles. A big part of this ethical discussion revolves around respect. When we teach respect, we bolster self identity and individualism. Sir Ken Robinson talks about the importance of this in creating the kind of school environment that gets away from the “one size fits all” production line, industrial model of education. When kids feel like their voices are heard, they can better find their own particular strengths and focus on those. Perhaps a shift of balance is in order. We need to include into every day’s lessons the opportunity for kids to use their new skills to perform open ended, collaborative, and challenging tasks. This is like the kind of learning community that John Seely Brown talks about, I think. We can only create social constructs of knowledge, where learning can be exponential, if people’s passion and playfulness are involved in a collaborative, “deep tinkering” context. I love how he discusses the importance of making mistakes is to this kind of learning. Luckily, we have started doing this in our school through a new focus on growth mindset. Mistakes are encouraged and supported as indicators of learning and growth. Where I fall short in my teaching is on the intrinsic vs extrinsic rewards argument that Dan Pink discusses. I feel a lot of pressure in our school to provide extrinsic rewards. I have adopted these in two cases out of pressure from other teachers. We are using Class Dojo points to reinforce “positive classroom behaviors”. We have also started using “brag tags” to do this. Our school also uses “tickets” to reinforce behaviors. In addition, I use a “marble jar” to reward the whole class on “quick transitions” and “acceptable classroom behavior”. I feel like we are teaching kids through these extrinsic rewards that it is ok to do what you don’t love with the promise of getting a reward that has little to do with the actual behavior. I feel like we are teaching kids to do the jobs they are not interested in, so that they get a reward that is actually a bit meaningless. This teaches people to do the jobs they are unhappy in just to get a paycheck. Intrinsic motivation actually increases productivity and satisfaction. If we set up our classroom context where kids are motivated to work together through their own questions and passions, then the need for these extrinsic rewards disappears. This is also what the Mobley article gets at. Instead of focusing on lecturing and memorizing, we should be focusing on questioning in non-linear and creative ways. When kids don’t tap into their questions and individual passions, it’s easy to fall into Mobley’s final pitfall: “Don’t ever quit.” Our kids are quitting because they are not tapping into their strengths. This is why I love Ryan and Evrim’s topic on strength based learning for their continuation high school, which has a high dropout rate. But I think many of our topics are pointed in this direction in this class. I feel we are all focused on creating rich learning environments that can lead to greater creativity through student collaboration, questioning, and intrinsic motivation. Most definitely Richard Louv's book entitled Last Child in the Woods, Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder is a frequently cited and quoted author in the research articles I have been reading. The book has strengthened the international campaign to get kids back to nature. But the resource I find myself going back to the most is Kevin J. Coyle's study called Digital Technology’s Role in Connecting Children and Adults to Nature and the Outdoors. I'm using many of the resources he lists to learn more about the topic. If you are interested in taking a look, it's available on the Web. It contains many of Louv's ideas, but goes on to discuss how educators can best develop nature apps that actually do help connect kids to nature and give them more powerful, direct experiences there. A lot about what I read this weekend has been about the ontological and epistemological, (I had to look these terms up), questions that revolve around the direct experience of nature vs a technology mediated experience. Phillip G. Payne's study called The technics of environmental education goes deeply into this. It was a difficult read. Here's his abstract:
"An ambivalent, sometimes destructive, relationship between modern humanity, technology and `outer' or external nature has historically attracted the critical attention of scholars and commentators from a wide variety of backgrounds. The effects of technology on postmodern `inner' nature warrants similar scrutiny. This article examines how technology structures human experience and is structuring education for sustainable development. Propositions about the `technics of experience' and questions for environmental education are posed so as to invite more earnest discussion about the inroads technologies and `vicarious' learning experiences are making into the equally unproblematic ontological treatment of postmodern learners/subjects. Consideration must be given to the question of what users of the technological medium `become'—an ontological issue of crucial relevance to the ongoing aspirations and legitimacy of environmental education." Coyle's work seems to resolve these deep questions through his presentation of thoughtful guidelines for nature app development. These guidelines address the need for apps to support children's direct experience of nature. Linda Darling-Hammond’s The Flat World and Education is an excellent guide to create the kind of paradigm shifts we need in this country that might improve our quality of education for ALL students.
Her key areas to focus on are:
For me, her key point is that by emphasizing equity for ALL students, we bring up all students. It is very shortsighted to allow a system that favors investment in the rich over the poor. What the rich don’t get is that they will be even better off if they try to help everybody to improve. A good example is Finland, where by ensuring equitable funding in all schools, all students benefited. The John Dewey quote shows how our founding forefathers knew this. When we know the vision of the original architects of our educational system, and can see how other countries have benefited from these ideas, why can’t we get it together to advance a national plan? What has happened? Education has been de funded. Darling-Hammond repeats over and over again in her book how increased investment is needed in order to implement the changes she proposes. But the national trend has been in the opposite direction. Prop 13 favors businesses and homeowners over education, for example. Not only that, but our national head of education, Betsy DeVos, is interested in turning schools into a for profit, privatized system. Here is a direct quote from the NEA website on Betsy DeVos: “As President Donald Trump’s secretary of education, Betsy DeVos has worked to subvert public education. She has promoted the privatization of public schools through vouchers, called for deep cuts to federal funding, rolled back protections for vulnerable children, and shilled for the for-profit college industry that has defrauded countless students.” Rather than investing in kids and teachers, our leaders seem more interested in how they might profit from them. To me it feel Machiavellian when I think that our nation’s education secretary, who wants to privatize education, is the sister of Eric Prince, the owner of the infamous Blackwater private mercenary group that fought in Iraq and got into a lot of trouble there for killing civilians. The school to prison pipeline could also turn into a for profit school to for profit mercenary group pipeline. Could it? Has it? We are a nation divided. In my opinion, the small minority with most of the money does not seem to feel identified with the increasing number of minority students in our schools. Rather than trying to help them, they ignore them or see them as another opportunity to profit. When I see our cohort’s thoughts and comments, I see us as really struggling to find meaning and direction in this broken system we have been working in. It’s so frustrating to see that the ideas are there and a way forward is clear, but that we are at the same time so far from reaching these goals. It has always seemed to me that I am not teaching the way I should be. I’ve always been trying to do my best with limited training and support in semi-cohesive programs. It feels like the collective political will has not fermented long enough for people to finally say “Enough!” There has to be some kind of “wake up” experience or renaissance in education and in a broader sense for us to refocus our values away from profiting off of each other, which brings everybody down, and back to investing into each other, which brings everyone up. I like the idea of 21st Century learning objectives, which revolve around critical thinking, problem solving, and technology. We are learning so much about the brain and what kind of “brainsets” we need for creative learning to occur. We have the technological tools that can help all voices be heard and level the playing field for minority students. But it also scares me to think how easy it is to allow this tool in schools to become what it has become in the social media world. Facebook started as a great platform to communicate with friends. It’s become another way to direct advertisements at people. I had to stop using it because I was getting more ads than news about my friends. Are there laws that prevent digital educational curriculum to contain advertisements? Literature Review Rough Draft
Jeremy Smith Introduction For one theme of this literature review, I read research articles that address the multiple health problems stemming from a lack of outdoor play in children. In another theme, research shows how environmental ed programs are an important part of high achieving schools, and how they help to close the achievement gap of minority students. Additional articles demonstrate how, notwithstanding, minority students spend even less time outdoors than white children. In an additional theme, research shows how formative experiences in nature help to awaken in children positive attitudes for future stewardship of our environment. Finally, articles show how the integration of digital devices into outdoor education, given our current technological and social patterns, are beneficial and even necessary for its success. This researcher’s action research study hopes to contribute to knowledge about how children interact with nature and each other through the integration of digital devices. In doing so, it hopes to gain additional insights into how the integration of technology into outdoor experiences may (or may not), promote language development in English language learners through extension activities that are integrated into the nature experience. Theme 1: Outdoor Play and Children’s Health This theme addresses the health problems in children that result from inactivity. There is information about this in the Coyle, Rivkin, Clements, and Louv writings. The Clements study, An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, is from a British organization called the Children and Nature Network. It is actually an exhaustive compilation of many studies that look at changes in outdoor play in an international context. It contains articles from countries such as England, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, the United States, Denmark, and Australia. Across nations, researchers have found that the amount of time children spend outdoors has decreased, that the kind of outdoor play that children are engaged in has also changed over time, and that the barriers to outdoor play are similar from country to country. The impact on children’s health that researchers have found range from vitamin D deficiency, myopia, decreased cardiopulmonary performance, obesity, strength, balance and gross motor performance, diabetes, and ADHD. The articles also point out the many cognitive, social, and health benefits that increased exposure to outdoor environments provide to children. The authors cite cognitive benefits from play in nature, including creativity, problem-solving, focus and self-discipline. Social benefits include cooperation, flexibility, and self-awareness. Emotional benefits include stress reduction, reduced aggression and increased happiness. Children will be smarter, better able to get along with others, healthier and happier when they have regular opportunities for free and unstructured play in the out-of-doors. In the different articles, data was collected in many ways. Its collection ranges from very scientific numbers based data to attitudes surveys. A weakness in several studies is that several depend on interviews and surveys from adults and are based on their memories of childhood play patterns. Adult memory, (I know mine at least), may not be a reliable source of data. The seminal book Last Child in the Woods by Richard Louv is another exhaustive account of the benefits and dangers that revolve around children’s exposure, or lack thereof, to outdoor spaces. It’s probably the most widely cited text in this field of study. The book draws its information from an impressive list of studies in the notes section. It also includes a guide for readers to become involved in the growing movement of outdoor education. While the book is narrative in nature, it includes many references to data driven findings, including many of the ones discussed in the Clements compilation. Theme 2: Environmental Education Programs Increase Student Performance The Lieberman, G., & Hoody, L. report called Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning is a product of the State Education and Environment Roundtable. This Roundtable includes education agencies from 12 states working to improve student learning by integrating the environment into K-12 curricula and school reform efforts. This Roundtable became interested in the potential of environment-based education programs to improve student learning, change long-standing pedagogical paradigms, and influence the way young people learn to live successfully in the world that surrounds them. Because of the limited amount of research on the efficacy of environment-based education programs, members designed a study to identify the most innovative and successful programs, describe their effectiveness, and analyze their commonalities and differences. They also sought to identify the factors that contributed to the success of these programs and any challenges they encountered during implementation. The article is an executive summary of the report that resulted from that study. It focuses on a specific area of environmental education: using the environment as an integrating context for learning (EIC). This term, which was coined by the Roundtable, encompasses the educational practices that the group believes should form the foundation of environment-based education programs in America’s schools. The report is based on a study of 40 schools from across the United States that have adopted the concepts and frameworks of EIC including: 15 elementary, 13 middle, and 12 high schools. It is informed by comments and experiences gathered through interviews with more than 250 teachers and principals, and more than 400 students. The article states that the observed benefits of EIC programs are both broad-ranging and encouraging.They include: • better performance on standardized measures of academic achievement in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies; • reduced discipline and classroom management problems; • increased engagement and enthusiasm for learning; and, • greater pride and ownership in accomplishments The 40 successful programs examined in this study share these fundamental educational strategies; they: • break down traditional boundaries between disciplines; •provide hands-on learning experiences, often through problem-solving and project-based activities; • rely on team teaching; • adapt to individual students and their unique skills and abilities; and, • develop knowledge, understanding, and appreciation for the environment –community and natural surroundings. In short, evidence gathered from this study of 40 schools indicates that students learn more effectively within an environment-based context than within a traditional educational framework. By providing a comprehensive educational framework, instead of traditional compartmentalized approaches, EIC appears to significantly improve student performance in reading, writing, math, science and social studies, and enriches the overall school experience. The report contains summaries of comparative analyses of comprehensive and discipline-specific standardized tests scores and GPA ‘s. For example, the assessments indicating that EIC students perform better than traditional students are as follows: In the nine comprehensive assessments given,100% showed that EIC students outperformed their peers in compartmentalized programs. In Language Arts, in the 17 assessments given, 100% of the students outperformed their peers. In Math, in the 7 assessments given, 71% outperformed peers. In Science, in the 4 assessments given, 75% outperformed. In Social Studies, in the 2 assessments given, 100% outperformed. In total, in the 39 assessments given, 92% of the assessments show that EIC students score higher than non EIC students. Furthermore, 100% of assessments also showed improved student attendance, behavior, and attitudes toward school. Educators also reported that the primary effects on the interpersonal skills of EIC students include: better ability to work in group settings (98%). (Environment-based learning helps students discover their own skills and appreciate those of others because it capitalizes on a variety of abilities.) It promotes stronger communication skills (94%). (As they work together, students learn to share ideas, discuss their reasoning, and develop new ideas that emerge from team discussions.) Acting with greater civility toward others (93%). (Working together in EIC programs, students begin to treat each other with more care and they exhibit more self-discipline.) Again, this study is based on school visits and reports from administrators, teachers, and children. It is mainly qualitative rather than quantitative. It is based on the opinions of participating students and educators, comparative analyses of standardized achievement and behavioral data, the observations of the researchers, and the research team’s interpretation and analysis of these opinions and observations. Although this study was not intended to be quantitative, the research team also collected as much quantitative data as possible to provide additional insight into the experiences of the study schools. Although evidence from 40 schools can not be considered conclusive, this study brings together a major body of knowledge gained from experienced educators and successful programs. A second source for information on the benefits of outdoor education on school performance is Joanne Lozar Glenn called Environment-based education: Creating high performance schools and students. It is a study that gives credit to and follows from the Leiberman and Hoody report outlined above. Glenn’s report consists of a collection of 7 case studies of schools in Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kentucky, and Florida where schools are using the environment to motivate students to learn and bring new life and meaning into their school experience. These studies document current evidence supporting the premise that, compared to traditional educational approaches, environmental-based education improves academic performance across the curriculum. Their findings are consistent with the findings of Leiberman and Hoody. Again, they found that students who are in environmentally focused schools demonstrate better performance on standardized measures of academic achievement in reading, writing, math, science,and social studies. They also have reduced discipline and classroom management problems, increased engagement and enthusiasm for learning, and greater pride and ownership in accomplishments. They make a recommendation in the article that The U.S. Department of Education establish an Office of "Ombudsman for the Environment." The function of the office would be to establish close linkages and coordination with the relevant units of the Department of Education, and with the EPA, the National Science Foundation, and other government agencies concerned with U.S. education. The author cites the 1983 report A Nation at Risk, which showed how the United States has been losing its preeminence in education among other nations. Since this report, the National Commission on Excellence in Education has been working to improve our nation’s schools. Specifically, in 1994, Congress passed the national Goals 2000 legislation. The author of this article says that the environmentally focused schools in his study satisfy these goals because of their hallmarks traits of: integrated learning across disciplines, problem solving, decision making, independent and group learning, issues-based instructional activities, and a balanced variety of perspectives. The study goes on to claim that while schools can integrate their curriculum around different disciplines such as art, geography, or archeology, the environment lends itself best to integration between disciplines because it is naturally inter-disciplinary, place-based, and lends itself to inquiry-based learning and team teaching. Also, parents give environmental education a 96% approval rating, which bodes well for their involvement and school to home connections. What I like about this study is that it goes into more detail about the schools it studies, for example, several of the schools they study have high minority/high poverty student populations, which is not unlike the school I work in. The case studies show through a variety of different state assessments how their students have truly closed the achievement gap. The study compares primarily reading, language, and math scores between EIC focused schools and other schools in the states they are from. Scores are higher in all the schools they looked at. The case studies describes in detail strategies that the different schools use to create a more integrated, environmentally focused curriculum. Quantitative, state assessment based data is then presented from each school in charts and graphs to show performance. Theme 3: Outdoor Experiences Foster Environmental Awareness and Stewardship Attitudes I focus on this theme because I, (and I know I am not alone), am deeply concerned for the future of our planet. One of educators’ main goals in fostering environmental education is the awakening in children of environmental awareness and activism. In her study Life paths into effective environmental action, Louise Chawla notes that helping children develop a sense of empathy and sympathy (such as for wildlife) are a foundation for the development of caring for the natural world. She says that adults can help children to see the world through this lens. Children who have some of the strongest emotional ties to nature are more inclined to want to protect the natural environment and species. In her study, structured open-ended interviews were conducted with 30 environmentalists in Kentucky and 26 in Norway (35 men, 21 women). In interviews that lasted between 1 and 2 hr, people whose lives demonstrated their commitment to protect or improve the environment were asked to tell when and where they grew up and went to school, their parents' occupations, and their own vocations and environmental activities. They were then asked to tell the story of their most important environmental efforts and the sources of their commitment, to share their wisdom regarding how to work most effectively, and to describe their vision for wise development. Importantly for educators, most people described childhood as the foundation of their relationship with the environment. Childhood predominated in importance both in terms of the number of types of formative experiences with which it was associated and its frequency of mention. Only three respondents did not begin their explanations of their commitment with childhood. She says that the effect of the right type of nature experience can be lifelong, and that in many cases this involves repetitive, long-term nature activities. Interestingly, she found that it can also be related to experiences that more intensively immerse a young person in nature. Chawla refers to an important long-range study of 2,000 adults in which researchers Wells and Lekies found that childhood participation in nature activities (e.g., hiking, camping, or playing in the woods), had a significant, positive effect on both adult environmental attitudes and behaviors. People who participated in “wild” nature activities as children were more likely to have pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors as adults. They concluded that wild experiences as children are more likely to produce adults who have a lifelong commitment to nature conservation. Positive results were also seen from less wild activities such as planting flowers, but young people being more immersed in nature had the greatest results. Theme 4: Integration of Technology into Environmental Education is Beneficial The Chavez study is a frequently referenced source of information on the role of technology in environmental education. It describes an action research project done with 38 youth ages 8-13 in Los Angeles. Children were asked to perform different tasks in nature. Some involved the use of technology, and some did not. The technology dependent activities are “camera safari” and a geocaching activity. The non-tech activities are “etchings/rubbings”, and a “nature scavenger hunt”. Data were collected on two areas: (I) votes by activity and (2) observer notes by activity. The majority of youth voted "green" (or "it was cool," "it rocked") on every activity. However, more voted "green" for the activities of geocaching for treasure (92%) and camera safari (86%) which were the technology dependent activities, than voted "green" for the non-technology dependent activities of nature scavenger hunt (76%) and etching/rubbing (62%). Only one person voted "red" (or "it was dumb," "it was a waste of time") for any activity. The etching/rubbing activity received the highest percentage of yellow (or "not sure," "it was alright") votes. Observers noted increased engagement and interest around the tech supported activities. The data evaluated suggest the use of technology to get youth outdoors is positive. However, these findings are based on an exploratory study of 38 youth. Chavez is careful to state that the results cannot be generalized beyond the youth who participated. She states that much more research needs to be conducted with youth to confirm and refine these results. For example, exact replications of the study conducted (four specific activities) can test technology versus non-technology dependent activities. In addition, she says that follow-up studies might examine if the interest in these activities continues beyond the testing day. Another set of studies might examine age and use of technology in outdoor settings and specifically whether some activities are better suited to older or younger youth. This is a promising jumping off point for my own action research. Specifically, I plan to look at her question about how interest in the activities may go beyond the testing day. But beyond just interest, I’m curious to see if the integration of tech into outdoor activities will lead to more exploration and use of language in extension activities in the form of nature reports. Kevin J. Coyle’s study, done nearly a decade later in 2017, provides a more in depth look at tech devices in nature. Through this study it can be appreciated how much thought has been put into integrating tech and nature in the past decade. In summary, this National Wildlife Federation’s study found that: “there is a role for mobile technology and other forms of technology in helping children to experience nature and to develop a lasting affinity for the natural world and the outdoors. Digital Apps and technology that encourage children and their caregivers to make the indoor/outdoor transition have particular value because they affirmatively try to bridge the gap between these two worlds.Technology by itself is not what is keeping a majority of American children indoors and away from nature. While digital technology, in all forms, is very evident in children’s lives, its causal effect in keeping children indoors is probably overshadowed by larger societal shifts in parental concerns over risk and safety and even the very definition of good parenting. Digital Apps need to more affirmatively account for and address the powerful and persistent barriers that exist in society for children to have more outdoor time. These barriers are complex and revolve around new definitions of safety and security of children who are outdoors. In the past 20 or more years, the definition of parenting and childcare giving has shifted toward high concern over hazards and threats, and a standard of vigilant supervision of outdoor children until they are teenagers.” He discusses how out of the thousands of digital apps that claim to promote environmental education, relatively few are designed to create a true and lasting affinity with nature. He says that many of these apps are designed for the classroom, but not for group, school based outdoor activities and that they need to be because parents are increasingly unable or unwilling to take their kids out into nature and this role is shifting toward schools, park agencies, or outdoor education organizations. Coyle then gives some interesting app design guidelines to actually do this. These outdoor app guidelines include: Activate the senses and expose children to natural beauty, A focus on animals in nature, Create perceptions of safety in nature, Encourage physical activity, Foster nature adventure scenarios, Connect close-knit social groups, Provide for caregiver roles, Protect equipment outdoors, Extend the experience, Collect and store observations, Make it wearable and hands free, and Use mobile senses and all the technology features (photos, sound recording, geo-location, immediate identification, recording to databases, interfacing with social media and more). His findings point to the possibility that digital apps that employ many of these features can offer significant opportunities to educate young people on how to use technology as an enrichment to the nature and outdoor experience. Summary These studies relate to the action research I propose to conduct because, for one, they give background information on the problems related to screen time and insufficient outdoor play. They also show how environmental education has academic and social benefits, especially around Napa County’s 6 C’s. Other research shows how early experiences in nature create a positive mindset around the stewardship of the environment. Finally, they show how integrating digital devices into outdoor instruction can enrich students’ experiences. My action research will either confirm or refute findings that technology is an effective tool when teaching outdoor ed. It might also show if and or how integration of tech into outdoor experiences might aid in academic achievement, with a special focus on English language learners. The task now is to design an action research project that can collect enough relevant data to provide additional insights into if, how, and why or why not. I hope it does. I’m obviously biased in favor of outdoor ed, and since tech is the future, I’d like to show how it can work for the environment, for kids’ academic and social development, and for outdoor educators. Resources Chavez, Deborah J. (2009) Youth Day in Los Angeles: Connecting Youth and Nature with Technology USDA Forest Service. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/chavez/psw_2009_chavez002.pdf Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15-26. Retrieved from: http://0-web.a.ebscohost.com.library.touro.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=b328b64f-1fe4-436b-971b-cbc49c795b3d%40sdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=EJ592056&db=eric Chawla, L (2000). Significant Life Experiences Revisited: a review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity Whitney Young College, Kentucky State University. Retrieved from: https://www.colorado.edu/cedar/sites/default/files/attached-files/Chawla,%20L.%20(1998).%20Significant%20life%20experiences%20revisited.%20Journal%20of%20Environmental%20Education,%2029(3),%2011-21..pdf Clements, R. (2004). An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues of Early Childhood, 5(1), 46-50. Retrieved from: https://www.childrenandnature.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CECCNNWorldwideResearch.pdf Coyle, Kevin J. (2017) Digital Technology’s Role in Connecting Children and Adults to Nature and the Outdoors National Wildlife Federation Retrieved from: https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Kids-and-Nature/NWF_Role-of-Technology-in-Connecting-Kids-to-Nature_6-30_lsh.ashx Glenn, J. L. (2000). Environment-based education: Creating high performance schools and students. Washington, DC: NEETF. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED451033.pdf Leach, Ana (2018) Improving Children’s Access To Nature Begins with Addressing Inequality The Guardian Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2018/mar/01/improving-childrens-access-nature-addressing-inequality-bame-low-income-backgrounds Lieberman, G., & Hoody, L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. San Diego, CA: State Education and Environmental Roundtable. Retrieved from: http://www.seer.org/extras/execsum.pdf Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. Rivkin, M. S. (1995). The great outdoors: Restoring children’s right to play outside. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Wells, Nancy M., Lekies, Kristi S. (2006) Nature and the Life Course: Pathways from Childhood Nature Experiences to Adult Environmentalism. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252512760_Nature_and_the_Life_Course_Pathways_from_Childhood_Nature_Experiences_to_Adult_Environmentalism1 Wesson, Mark (2011) Connecting Children to Nature: Integrating Technology into Nature Programs and Incorporating Environmental Education into an Urban After School Program Colorado State University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2011. 1503695. Retrieved from: https://0-search-proquest-com.library.touro.edu/pqdthss/docview/916424289/4DAAF70ED06648B0PQ/1?accountid=40250 Additional resources to be looked at: Clements, R. (2004). An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues of Early Childhood, 5(1), 46-50. Cole, A. (2007). Expanding the field: Revisiting environmental education principles through multidisciplinary frameworks. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(2), 35-43. Coyle, K. (2005). Environmental literacy in America: What ten years of NEETF/Roper research and related studies say about environmental literacy in the U.S. The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.neetf.org/pubs/ELR2005.pdf (accessed May 6, 2006). Kumar, J., Muntner, P., Kaskel, F. J., Hailpern, S. M., & Melamed, M. L. (2009). Prevalence and associations of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D deficiency in US children: NHANES 2001-2004. Pediatrics, 124(3), 362-370. Palmer, J. (1993). Development of concern for the environment and formative experiences of educators. The Journal of Environmental Education, 24(3), 26-30. Palmer, J., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., & Tsaliki, E. (1998). Significant influences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in the UK, Slovenia, and Greece. Environmental Education Research, 4(4), 429-444. 6 Pergams, O., & Zaradic, P. (2006). Is love for nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management, 80, 387-393. Satterthwaite , D. (2000). Will most people live in cities? BMJ: British Medical Journal, 7269(321), 1143-1145. Singer, D., Singer, J., D'Agostino, H., & DeLong, R. (2009). Children's pastimes and play in sixteen nations. American Journal of Play,1(3), 283-312. United Nations (2008). United nations population division: World urbanization prospects. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ wup2007/2007WUP_ExecSum_web.pdf. Verheij, R.A.,Maas, J. & Groenewegen, P.P. (2008).Urban rural health differences and the availability of green space. European Urban and Regional Studies, 307(15). DOI: 10.1177/0969776408095107 From Screens to Streams:
Technology Driven Strategies to Get Elementary Students Interested and Into in Nature Touro University California By Jeremy Smith Given the current social patterns related to the amount of time kids in general, but especially our majority of minority students, are spending outdoors versus indoors on screens, I think there is a way schools might shift their educational focus and goals to integrate an increased awareness of and interaction with the outside world. This is increasingly vital for the stewardship of our environment. Because screens are not going away, the shift in school focus leverages technological devices to increase student motivation to get into nature and interact with it. The project I plan to do with my students is a small part of this big idea, but I hope it provides insights into how it might be done. Abstract Key Words Introduction National State Local Statement of the Problem Background and Need Purpose of the Project Goal/Purpose of the Study Methodology Study Design Data Analysis and Interpretation Table 1 Table 2 Etc Recommendations and Summary References While my own personal experience as a parent of a “tech savvy” 15 yer old son has had a lot to do with my interest in children’s use of technology, I think my choice for this topic of investigation started several years ago during parent teacher conferences at Calistoga Elementary School. When I asked parents, “What is your main concern for your child?”, parents invariably responded with something to the effect of: “I’m worried about the amount of screen time my child is engaged in”. All the while, I have had to explain to parents that their children are increasingly using screens in the classroom as well. Our school recently adopted a “one laptop per child” policy which has shifted our pedagogical focus toward the increased use of laptops as a source of curriculum and instructional techniques and strategies. This parent concern I have been hearing for the past several years reflects the findings of one recent national study which shows that while more than four-fifths (83%) of parents questioned in the United States think it is important for their children to learn to use technology, nine out of ten would prefer them to spend their childhood outdoors, developing a connection with nature. In another recent study, almost all (96%) of the 1,001 parents with children aged between four and 14 quizzed for the National Trust thought it was important that their children had a connection with nature and thought playing outdoors was important for their development. (XXXXThe Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/27/children-spend-only-half-the-time-playing-outside-as-their-parents-did). Despite these near unanimously expressed concerns among academics and parents, the amount of time children spend indoors and on screens has increased dramatically in the past several decades. It’s estimated now that children spend half as much time playing outdoors as indoors as their parents did. The National Wildlife Federation estimates that children spend half an hour a day outdoors, but 7 hours a day in front of video screens playing games, watching TV, and spending time on the computer. (XXXXhttps://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/03/outdoors) These activities are linked with the rise in childhood obesity, ADHD, vitamin deficiency, and general social/emotional wellbeing. A 2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that one-third of children and teens, ages 2 to 19, were overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. By 2010, about half of school-age children in North and South America will be overweight or obese, predicts an article in the (XXXXInternational Journal of Pediatric Obesity (Vol. 1, No. 1). More here…) Now we are in 2020, and something feels profoundly wrong, here. Because concurrently in schools, as teachers get used to the new one laptop per child technology, the hours students spend on screens in the classroom is also on the rise. (XXXX Is there a study to show this?) As an educator, I’ve always understood that my main role is not to ensure kids are educated, but that they are, first and foremost, kept safe and healthy. I feel like I have been failing my students in this most fundamental of tasks. (Studies show how today’s kids have a lower life expectancy than we do.) I fear that in this new technological and environmentally challenged World we are living in, our current educational model is actually having a detrimental effect on children. It could also be bad for the environment as kids become more disconnected from the world around them and into digital screen based worlds. As educators, focus must be on children’s health first, because the possibility of learning depends, after all, on their safety, health, and social wellbeing. In doing so, we would also be helping the environment through increased awareness and interaction with outdoor spaces. Many recent studies have shown that this common parent and educator fear is indeed backed up by science. In the health field, numerous studies have shown, (XXXXapa), that being outdoors more is linked to the following benefits, as determined by, for example: https://www.nwf.org/en/Kids-and-Family/Connecting-Kids-and-Nature/Health-Benefits-and-Tips (The following was cut and pasted from the Internet to maintain a direction, but not to plagiarize): Body
The good news is, studies have shown that increasing awareness of our natural environment leads to attitudes which bode well for its protection. (XXXXX find it again) While it is popular to blame technology for kids’ decreasing outdoor play time, it is not the only reason why this phenomenon is happening. For one, the increasing homework load kids have had over the past decades has reduced their time for outdoor play. (XXXX). It’s also been observed that parent attitudes and fears around unstructured, outdoor play have influenced the amount of time children spend outside. Mass shootings, coupled with our fear-based media that disproportionately amplifies such occurrences, have had a huge effect here. Not to say mass shootings are not, in fact, on the rise, of course. A specific concern in the community of Calistoga is that the majority of our students, (85%), are minority students who qualify for free/reduced lunch. The academic benefits for these students that come from the use of technology are well known. The use of technology in the classroom has specifically been shown to reduce achievement gaps in reading scores for English language learners. (XXXX) However, other studies show how and why minority students are underrepresented in outdoor programs. (XXX) In Calistoga families are increasingly fearful of ICE immigration officials detaining people in the community. Last year the story children told me is that “la migra” was in Calistoga looking to detain people. People have been “hiding” indoors to avoid contact with authorities. This is not to say that our families do not want their kids to have more outdoor play. In fact, my experience during the past three years as the teacher representative in the Spanish speaking parent group or, ELAC. has made me aware of the community's desire for more outdoor spaces for their children. Our local Spanish speaking parents began, without school input, an outdoor spaces initiative. They feel that there are not enough outdoor spaces in Calistoga. To address this problem, they developed their own committee to study the possibility of securing an exercise course, a picnic area, a soccer field, and a skate park. The group is called Adelante, which in Spanish means “forward”, or “ahead”. They have presented their plan to the local school board and town government. Unfortunately, they meet on Wednesday nights, so I’m out of these meetings until I finish this masters program. The last I heard, they secured funding for the picnic area and “ropes course”. I need to check in to see how this project is coming along. As I continue to read studies on these themes, I’m becoming more curious about the impact that the residency status of families has on kids’ ability to get outdoors and into natural spaces. Minority students already have challenges due to the economic and time constraints of their working parents. If we also consider the fears of coming into contact with immigration authorities, I suspect, the challenges to getting out of the house are increased. Compared to the 50’s, 60’s, and even 70’s and 80’s, when the common experience was for kids to go outdoors to play after school until sundown, most kids now go shut themselves into their houses. A telling quote here comes from the seminal work on kids’ interaction with the environment, called “Last Child in the Woods”, by Richard Louv. When asked why he prefers to play indoors, a child simply and honestly states, “It’s where all the electrical outlets are”. (Go on here, ...more studies and facts.) And yet while parents, educators, and researchers recognize that outdoor play and exploration is profoundly beneficial to children’s health, we also recognize that screen based technology is not going away anytime soon. It’s projected that...(XXXXapa) Thankfully, there is no denying that despite these concerns, technology in the hands of children has proven to have many educational benefits. For example, (XXXX,apa). Importantly, it has proven effective in closing achievement gaps among “English Language Learners”, and their “Other Language Learners” counterparts. (XXXX Can I use the Touro study done in Calistoga by one of our retired teachers for this one?) Proposal: Educators are faced with a new social, technological and environmental landscape that requires them to adapt their educational model in a fundamental way. At home, students are increasingly on-line and on screens at hourly levels that are unhealthy. In addition, the content children consume on screens at home is often violent. The two genres of “first person shooter” and “adventure” games make up around 50% of all video games sold, followed by role playing, sport, adventure, fighting, racing, strategy, and other genres. Notwithstanding, parents, out of a variety of fears, have reduced their childrens’ ability to be outside in unstructured environments. One proposal would be to flip the focus of schools onto outdoor learning environments. Schools necessarily shift their focus to provide more healthy outdoor play and learning activities that kids no longer get at home. I like the term “flip” because our schools’ role takes on the traditional role that outdoor after school time used to have for kids. Because the use of technology in classrooms has been proven to have many educational benefits, especially for English language learners, technology would still be used, but in ways that encourage outdoor learning. This proposal also leverages the technology use already going on in homes. Students complete lessons from school on their in-home devices. Inversely, schools reduce the amount of in-class screen time. If they are having more unstructured recess time, taking care of school gardens, and going on more hikes to the local parks and trails during school, kids would also be charged with using their devices at home, hence, homework, (their screen time), to complete related assignments. They bring their individual experiences and thoughts into the classroom through written assignments, photos, videos, audio recordings, etc. They bring them to class through digital platforms and create a shared community in the classroom. This shift could lead to increased awareness of the environment, which is vital for our society. It would also lead to improved mental, social, and physical health of our children. Given their institutionally structured nature, schools are, I believe, equally if not better equipped/positioned than families to ensure kids get the necessary amount of safe, outdoor, unstructured playtime that they need to develop in a healthy and socially and environmentally beneficial manner, while at the same time ensuring that their in-home screen time is dedicated toward more creative, constructive, and generally positive learning. The school shift in technology use needs to be re-directed toward student and environmental health, sustainability, and general wellbeing. All this points to a profound re-positioning of the role of schools in child education. They will increasingly need to become places where children are engaged in unstructured play and interaction with the natural world. It happens in a safe, structured, teacher-guided environment, where parents feel it’s safe for them to explore outdoor environments. Using tech tools at home also plays into the recent trend in education where people are increasingly learning in non-traditional and technology assisted, independent contexts. We are learning tech tools on our own to satisfy professional and communication needs. (More here…) A lesson/project in a school like this might look like the following: “Take a walk with a parent or a friend. Use a phone/camera to take a picture of a plant or animal from your house or outside. (It can be a pet!) Send the picture to your teacher through Class Dojo, etc. We’ll present it in class on (day; time (weekly)).” Or, “Ask a family member to download from the app store iNaturalist or iNaturalist Seek. (etc..)Take pictures with your app and tell us what plants and animals you identified with the help of this app. We will share your findings with the class on (day of week) Ongoing collection of local plant and animal species photos and information would lead to group or individual reports in a Google Slides format. There are a variety of resources teachers can use to do such a technology based nature project. “What if?” questions: Can schools create assignments that ask kids to go explore outdoor spaces, given safety and insurance concerns? Can parent waiver forms be used? (Even so, if they still had to be inside, they’d be using their indoor screen time doing classwork instead of video games exclusively.) Can schools afford to procure and let kids take handheld devices home? Also, in order to involve parents, are the apps in Spanish? A family outreach program might include education that encourages and teaches parents to get outdoors and interact with their kids more often. So far, my research project plan is to look at my third grade students’ experiences on two outdoor field trips, one in the fall and another in the spring, to the 3,200 acre Pepperwood Preserve. Our Title 1 school receives funding to participate in their SCENIQ program, which trains students on environmental inquiry. Through a year-long, nine hour program that includes visits to Pepperwood in the fall and spring and a school-based lesson in the winter, classes participate in hands-on grade-level specific activities. Students record written and visual observations in creative bilingual nature journals. Students practice discovery skills, learn to support their ideas with evidence, and gain knowledge of our local environment. SCENIQ was one of the first environmental education programs to be accepted to Sonoma County’s Upstream Investment Portfolio. The Portfolio is a select collection of local, evidence-based programs proven to help eliminate poverty in Sonoma County and ensure equal opportunity for quality education. The program promotes the Next Generation Science Standards, which aim to eliminate the practice of “teaching to the test.” Instead, they shift the focus from merely memorizing scientific facts to actually doing science—so students spend more time posing questions and discovering the answers for themselves. SCENIQ is aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards and puts students in the science driver’s seat. My action research will be done with my 3rd grade class of 22 students. The inquiry will set up our two trips to use, in the fall, a traditional, non-technologically assisted experience in nature; and in the spring, an experience which will include the use of iPads, smart phones, or digital cameras. In both formats, students will be asked to comment on their observations with three writing prompts: I notice… I wonder… and, It reminds me of. As an extension activity, students will use the data they discovered in the field to create reports. The first report will be in a traditional, handwritten and arts/crafts style format. The second will be a slideshow in Google Slides. I’m interested to see how technology might enhance student motivation and success in Pepperwood’s three main focus areas: to practice discovery skills, learn to support their ideas with evidence, and gain knowledge of our local environment. The second trip/experience is really open right now to exploration. A lot depends on my own learning curve in using tech devices with kids. Data collection Informal observations of the kids in nature Nature Reports (quality and depth of information) Thoughts about the experience the experience questionnaire A corollary question for me is how the use of tech in nature might alter kids’ experience of nature. Do kids get more or less out of the experience in terms of motivation, understanding, (insights), reporting, and further study? On the tech side. Does the camera or video device limit a child’s perception of things in nature due to its “click and done” style of observing and capturing, or does it focus it in a lead to further questioning and understanding? On the nature journal side, do kids perceive more in a direct, first person non-tech experience in nature when they slow down enough in order to draw what they see in a detailed manner? Should we focus on teaching this way of interacting with nature? Is it developmentally appropriate? Is the use of tech devices to interact with record nature more suited to children than nature journals? (XXXX I read something about this. apa needed.) Because on our first outing to the creek the kids were so excited turning over rocks that they did not want to slow down to draw anything. This can be structured in a lesson. It goes into the realm of teaching mindfulness to kids, which is also a big theme. I suspect in the interest of balance we would want to do both. Another query is: In a social-emotional sense, do kids demonstrate different behaviors with their peers outdoors when the tech is there or not there? Finally, does the use of tech devices for these purposes increase ELL student learning around concepts and language? Also, can we show that any of this has an impact on test scores, (which ones), and/or should we even try to show this? Is our “smarter balanced” test reflective of the new focus this kind of learning proposes? The data might be too stretched to show any of that conclusively, anyway. will the integration of tech devices unlock ELL and specifically newcomer interaction, knowledge, and expression around their experiences? OK, here is my new and perhaps more interesting pondering that came out of my original ponderings on environmental education:
Minority students, specifically Latino and Black, make up only 10% of the kids who are attending outdoor kindergartens so far (Wait. In Washington? Where did I read that? Maybe it was in the latest REI catalog, or maybe not.) IF this is, in fact, a trend, then why? And if it becomes one, then how can we reverse it? Because, the latino student population is BY FAR, (about 80% in my experience teaching in Northern California), the biggest student population in the upcoming ranks of students. We need to direct our educational efforts at Latino students, here, AND internationally, students abroad. They will be the majority of future leaders who will work on environmental education, awareness, and action. SO, how do we design internationally available, digital, “2.0” 5G? outdoor curriculum to fit with their languages, social contexts, environments, and cultural values? Of course, I’m also thinking about how to get parents involved in this. (They own the cell phones in the family.) The other question is: How many of these apps designed to get kids in touch with/out into nature are already multilingual? I imagine iNaturalist is, since it is used internationally. Is iNaturalist doing this on crowd source based platforms like Wikipedia? Are other countries doing similar projects? Time to ask Google. (I bet this has already been thought about and worked on a hundred times but I enjoy thinking about it nevertheless.) |
AuthorJeremy Smith teaches third grade at Calistoga Elementary School. Archives
July 2020
Categories |