eMINTS and Inspired Classrooms?

What does eMINTS have to do with Inspired Classrooms? That’s my question this morning. I am attending eMINTS training today at Irving ISD and am looking forward to seeing the connection to be made via essential questions, constructivist classrooms and inquiry based lessons. What is eMINTS you ask? Here’s the official scoop from the eMINTS website:

“eMINTS changes how teachers teach and students learn. Its instructional model provides a research-based approach to organizing instruction and can be implemented in any subject area at any level. The eMINTS instructional model enables educators to create classrooms where all students are motivated to succeed socially and academically,
fully incorporate technology investments into teaching and learning, complement existing curriculum with critical-thinking requirements found in national, state and local curriculum standards and build enthusiasm and creativity into daily teaching.”

Our workshop leaders today are Brooke Higgins and Julie Szaj, both eMINTS Cluster Instructional Specialists. Here is a link to the resources we will be using today and tomorrow: http://missouri.emints.org/southeast/se1/texas/texas_index.htm  

We start the day with a constructivism activity. (Saving Fred, the Gummi Worm) Through this activity, we look at the differences in traditional and constuctivitst lessons. Afterwards, we brainstormed the characteristics of each. Traditional activites were typically: focused on following directions, limit the need for thinking creatively, time efficient, and linear/sequential. For most traditional activities, the end product is clearly defined before students begin work. In a constructivist environment, however, the focus is on the problem and requires team members to work together and take on multiple roles, based on individual strengths. Thinking at higher levels is required (synthesis/evaluation) and these activities typically take longer to complete. Working from essential questions is key. 

Next we look at Grappling’s Technology & Learning Spectrum. This appears to be the rating system by which we will use to evaulate where activites live along the traditional vs. constructivitst continuum. On first glance, I think I like this better than LoTI. There are three levels: (1)literacy, (2)adapting and (3)transforming. Here are the videos we are watching to help clarify:

Literacy
http://engauge.ncrel.org/survey/video.asp?VideoID=alice3
Adapting
http://engauge.ncrel.org/survey/video.asp?VideoID=sarah3
Transforming
http://engauge.ncrel.org/survey/video.asp?VideoID=greg3

Here’s an eMINTS constructivist lesson plan form I just Googled:
Constructivist lesson plan form, with prompts (PDF)
Constructivist lesson plan form, blank (PDF)
Constructivist lesson plan form, blank (Word)

This is great. “The Hallmarks of an Effective eMINTS Classroom outline the progression of changes in teaching practice that are often observed as teachers complete the eMINTS Comprehensive Professional Development Program. The Hallmarks can be used as a coaching and mentoring tool by instructional specialists working with eMINTS teachers as well as by teachers who are interested in charting their course and progress through eMINTS professional development.” Check out this document:
 http://w4.nkcsd.k12.mo.us/~tscott/pd4ets/Hallmarks.doc

After the break, we look at INQUIRY LEARNING and essential questioning.
Here’s some interesting statistics: kids at home genereate ½ of all questions asked, however in a high school setting less than 15% of all questions are posed by students, and most of those are low level knowledge/comprehension questions. These figures come from an interesting article worth further investigation.

I just thought of this…”When we tell kids what they need to know, there’s no reason for them to search for the answers.” Hmmm?

So, how do we get kids to ask/answer high level questions? Work through the teaching process of: (1) I do/you watch (2) I do/You help (3) You do together/I help (4) You do/I watch (5) You Do/I watch. It does start with teacher modelling. The progression of questioning goes from “what?” (factual) to “so what?” (interpretive) then to ”now what?”
(synthesis). This process moves from putting answers ”on the line” (factual) to reading “between the lines” (interpretive) and then moving “beyond the lines” (synthesis). Great analogy!

After lunch, we spent the majority of time discussing essesntial questions. Good EQ’s usually have a few of these elements:
 
-it has to matter to the kids
-it should spark curiosity and sense of wonder
-it is poised at the boundary of what is known and what is unknown
-it causes students to probe deeper meaing
-it’s answer cannot be found but must be constructed
-it asks question that simulates more questions
-it prompts students to make up their own minds
-it’s answer may change over time
-it is multidisciplinary
-it leads to creativity and to seeing connections in life

GREAT SESSION today! I can totally buy into this…more so than LoTI. While it still requires a lot of work and thoughtfullness on the teacher’s part, I think this model is more accessible to teachers, and at a more practical level. Brooke and Julie did a super job guiding everyone today, and I look forward to learing more in tomorrow’s session. I’ll post my thoughts on the connections between IC’s and eMINTS after we finish tomorrow.