"We're in a 21st-century innovation economy. Ideas rule the day. We need to really think about our schools in a way that help students just change the world. Actually help them to change the world, not just simply be prepared to live in it." -Scott Morrison
In this transcript from a live interview with KnowAtom CEO Francis Vigeant, Scott Morrison, Director of Curriculum & Instructional Technology in the Marchester-Essex school district in talks about:
- "Building back” all the way from kindergarten to prepare kids for STEM careers
- The difference between knowing and engaging in STEM practices
- Similarities between the order of the process of writing and the order to science ed practices
- Focusing on the “why” of education
- The biggest challenges in making the switch to the Next Generation Science Standards
Francis Vigeant: My name is Francis Vigeant, and I have with me today the Director of Curriculum Instruction for Manchester-Essex Regional School District, Scott Morrison.
Scott Morrison: Hey, Francis.
Francis Vigeant: Hey, Scott. How are you?
Scott Morrison: Good, how are you doing today?
Francis Vigeant: Good. For everyone out there, I'm really happy to have Scott with us today, because Scott is not only a teacher with 22 years of experience, starting in urban education as a math/science teacher, but he's gone on to spend eight years as a principal, and then another eight years as director of curriculum instruction through a variety of different kinds of districts, from urban to suburban.
He is currently wrapping up his PhD in organizational leadership in education from Northeastern University. We could go on and on, but thanks, Scott, for joining us, and I'd like to jump right in here and just let folks know that if you're on the live session, we are going to take question-and-answer for the last 10 to 15 minutes at the end.
If you're from Massachusetts, you probably know Scott, perhaps through the Northeast STEM network, perhaps through a planning team for the Massachusetts State STEM Summit, and as a STEM Advisory Board member. Scott, thanks for joining us.
Scott Morrison: Thank you, Francis. I'm happy to be here and thrilled to be part of this important conversation.
Francis Vigeant: Thanks. You and I collaborated on some slides for today's presentation. The first slide that you sent was, "Here is what we know." When we think about sharing your experience, going from perhaps a traditional model to a next-generation model instruction, your district is seeing evolution over time. Can you share with us what you mean by “what we know” and why this is important?
Scott Morrison: Certainly. I think as an umbrella comment maybe to these four bullet points on this slide, I think as we think about public education, and we think about the way of the world and the direction that we know we need to head in, I think it's not so much what our students know, it's what can they do with what they know.
When you think about that, we're in a 21st-century innovation economy. Ideas rule the day. We need to really think about our schools in a way that, as you can see on the slide, we need to help students just change the world. Actually help them to change the world, not just simply be prepared to live in it. I think, for a long time, I think back to my years as a teacher 20-some odd years ago. I think maybe we were doing a little bit more of that — preparing kids to live in the world.
I think the economy that we're in nowadays, and just the way that the world is operating, we really need to prepare our students to change the world. I think the way that you do that and we'll talk about this. You and I have had these conversations through our STEM Squared experience together. I think the way that we do that is we really need to shift the focus of school from the mere acquisition of knowledge and more towards and understanding of the learning process.
That ties in with that idea of children having knowledge of what they can do with the information that they have, not just having the information. In finding the tools and delivering the professional development to teachers where they can develop the creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, and reasoning skills needed for the 21st- century within our students. I think that sets the stage for a lot of the focus of our conversation today.
Francis Vigeant: You mentioned this 2028. When you think 2028, what's the significance of that?
Scott Morrison: Yes. I know. They have a big red curtain and the big grand opening here of 2028. So 2028, I'm giving a lot of thought to this. I'll be moving into a superintendency in July of next year, and as I was thinking about that position and thinking about that role that I'll be going into, when I begin that role, students in kindergarten next school year, will graduate in 2028.
When I really stopped to think about that — that's an awe-inspiring number, when you think about that. We don't know what the world's going to look like six months from now, 12 months from now, let alone 12 years from now when kindergarten students are graduating from high school and walking off with their diplomas. If we had to think about what type of an educational model that we wanted to design and build, I really think we need to think about it with that number in mind.
I think, unfortunately, the standardized world that we live in, we tend to only think month-to-month in terms of the work that we're doing because of the many mandates we have put upon us in our classrooms and in our schools. I think we need to have the long view on this and think about when students walk off our fields, or walk out of our auditoriums, or off of our stages in 2028, what will the world look like then? What will students need to know and be able to do in order to compete in the workforce at that point?
I think if we stop to have those big conversations — and we're starting to have those conversations where I am now, and I'm looking forward to having those conversations when I transition into a new role as well. I think we need to think about, “How do we build that back?” Whatever that is, how do we build that back in high school, and middle school, and in elementary school all the way down to kindergarten?
What I keep coming back to is this idea of what we talked about on the first slide. Yes, content is important, but I think teaching students how to learn and teaching them how to prepare themselves for understanding the world that they'll be going into, and what are the infrastructure skills that they need in order to learn? I think that's a key part of what we'll talk about today.
Francis Vigeant: I think that's the perfect spot to really begin diving into Next Generation Science Standards and the idea behind Next Generation Science Standards, and one of the key transitions is really this new definition of effective science instruction or we could even say STEM instruction. I'd like to read that and get your thoughts on it, and what that has meant to your community, and what you think that means to the broader community.
Effective STEM instruction capitalizes on students’ early interest and experiences. It identifies and builds on what they know and provides them with experiences to engage them in the practices of science and sustain their interest. That's neither of our definitions, but that's the National Research Council's definition that became infused in this NGSS process. What are your thoughts on that?
Scott Morrison: I think it's spot on. I really do. I think that's exactly the point that I'm trying to make with that idea of 2028. I think engaging students in the practices of the work that they're doing. Particularly, this is a phone call about science and technology engineering, so certainly engaging students in the practices of science, technology, and engineering, and we do have a scientific method and an engineering-design process.
I think if we can develop a way for our students to think in that manner. To think in that sort of process-and-practice manner. A process is just an ordered set of practices. I really think that the more we can focus on that, and I think this is a good slide here that you just put up as well — that's the difference between as it says here, knowledge creation versus information consumption.
That picture on the bottom with the matching gloves and shirts, I think that was probably for some glossy magazine somewhere. That's just information consumption. There's not a lot of knowledge being created there. Kids need to be able to manipulate ideas and thoughts in their mind and figure out how they want to move forward. When I think about a practice, practice connects skill to content. It's the bridge, right? It's the bridge between those two things.
As you have up on the slides there, right there are the engineering practices. Those are the practices that we want our students to engage in in engineering. If you look at those practices, that really carries through many parts of their educational experience. You talked about higher-order thinking. If we can get students to think in this higher-order manner where they're remixing and creating ideas and manipulating those ideas in their head to create new knowledge. That, I think, will have profound effects for the work that we do in education as we move towards the future.
I often make the connection to, and I don't know if we do this enough in education. I think not only do we need to make sure we engage our students in the practices of science, technology, and engineering, but then on a bigger scale, as we think about our teachers and making sure that they have the tools and the instructional practices that they need, we need to allow them to engage in the practices of education also.
Again, if we think of this idea that a practice connects skill to content, I think lawyers and doctors have it right. They call what they do a practice. They have a medical practice or a law practice. They engage in the practices of medicine. They engage in the practices of law. People can do the same thing with our teaching staff. I don't know why it's odd for us to say we're engaging in the practices of education.
As educators, we should be using that language. I think the more that we can do that, I think we have a better chance of moving the needle. When we think about this idea of engaging the practices and really moving the needle forward or ahead in terms of the work that we're doing with our kids.
Francis Vigeant: So we think about that idea: That now, with Next Generation Science Standards, we have really clearly defined practices. You mentioned processes, so these being the practices of science and engineering, and processes being the scientific process or the engineering-design process where these practices come together.
Among your peer group. Among your teachers. Among the different experiences you've had as you've been implementing these practices in the classroom for teaching and learning — what is that transition like? What does it feel like? Is it natural? I feel like one of the challenges even you mentioned for a glossy magazine. When you look at the glossy magazine, this is the picture of science instruction.
Scott Morrison: Right. Exactly.
Francis Vigeant: If it's not this, it's a child with some goggles and an exploding volcano. How do you get beyond that?
Scott Morrison: Yeah. It's a great point that you bring up. I would say I remember a few years ago, I did a Google image search for engineer. Engineering, or engineer, or whatever the case may be. And the first picture that came up was Mickey Mouse on a train with an engineering hat on, like a train conductor/engineer hat on. It's this idea of the imagery around this; oftentimes, I think images can be very powerful, and if that's what science is supposed to look like, and I'm not saying it is, where it's next to the information-consumption box there. That's not what science should necessarily look like, but that's the image that we're surrounding and that's the picture that we're building in people's minds.
That's certainly the wrong image. I think we need to go about changing that. In terms of the real pragmatics we have on the ground, I think really developing an understanding with staff and doing this in a way that you bring people together, and you have these conversations. You ask them about where do they feel they need to grow professionally? I think STEM Squared is a great example of this. STEM Squared is a great example of this, because when we put that program together, we had a lot of people turn out for science-professional development. High-quality, science-professional development.
They were coming on their own time and doing their best to make it work. That, I think, told me that folks really need — especially at the elementary level — really need to develop a stronger understanding of what it's like to teach science, technology, and engineering standards. I think at the heart of this is developing within kids and teachers.
Rick Romelli says this, and I think it's so true: "Meaning-making is the root of perseverance." As students make meaning, they'll continue to persevere with the work that they're doing. I think the same holds true for our teachers as well. "Meaning-making is the root of perseverance." As we deliver the professional development to our teachers and we start to have the conversations about this. We're going to talk about the why a little bit later on in this, but I think focusing on why this is important is something that really helps to move the conversation, and we'll jump on that a little bit more a little bit down the road on this presentation today.
Francis Vigeant: Before we get to the whys, I guess the difference — and I think that that's maybe a point that's worth pointing out here, when you look at these two pictures — really, what's the difference? I know that you're saying knowledge creation versus information consumption, but if you think about it, I think maybe you've provided this slide, and I thought this was really interesting. How knowledge does not equal understanding. What is it that's the difference? Is there something that stands out to you here?
Scott Morrison: Sure. If you can go to that bike slide for a second, I think that might be two ahead. Yeah, that one there. That's a great video. I think it's on YouTube. It's called “The Backwards Bicycle.” As folks get a chance to watch that, I would highly recommend it. I think the implications to education and the work that we do on a daily basis is highly correlated to the gentleman who put this video together.
As you can see in that picture of the bike, there's a gear there. He's an engineer, I think by trade, and he had the folks in his office area, or garage, or wherever he was working out of reverse the handle bars and the tires. So if you're turning the handlebars left, as you can see in that picture, the tire went to the right. This idea of when everyone says, "It's as easy as riding a bike," or, "It's as simple as riding a bike," well, if you think about having the knowledge of riding a bike, well, that doesn't automatically equal understanding, because there's great pictures and video of the gentleman trying to ride this bike, and it took him months to undo in his head the habit that he had developed of how to ride a bike to learn how to actually ride this backwards bicycle.
Then this great video at the end of that YouTube picture or YouTube link where he goes back to ride a regular bike and people are looking at him like, "Why can't this guy ride a bike?" and it's because he had for so long worked on riding a bike this way. He then had his son ride the backwards bike, and his son is able to do it in a much quicker time span. What moves knowledge to understanding is this idea of practice.
The knowledge of how to ride a bike — if you just got on this bike that, doesn't mean you're going to actually understand how to ride it. You actually have to engage in the practices. In Gladwell's quote there, which I think is so fitting, "Practice isn't the thing you do once you're good; it's the thing that makes you good."
If you go back to that previous slide, Francis, I think that will correlate. This thing here — this quote from Valerie Strauser — I read this online, and it just so stuck out to me in terms of, "When kids understand, how their minds sort, store, retrieve, integrate, and relay information. They know how to create knowledge and sometimes even wisdom."
Again, that's that idea of moving beyond just, "Here, remember this; hold onto this information." It's really developing the executive functioning within our kids so they have an ability to figure out how to find that information, how to organize and store that information. How to access that information so that they can start to put it together. That all happens in practice.
Francis Vigeant: Mm-hmm. When you talk about it, yeah, it makes perfect sense. I guess the question then is, what is the bike that as educators we've all learned to ride versus the next generation bike that we all have to learn to ride and making that shift?
Scott Morrison: Yeah. Well said.
Francis Vigeant: This is a slide that we often use at KnowAtom to talk about the traditional model of science instruction that I think we're all taught as educators traditionally. I think this is changing, so I don't want to paint with too broad of a brush, but the idea that content flows through a teacher whose role it is to be an expert, and that teacher then plays the role of expert by getting on the stage and modeling the facts, explaining why, demonstrating phenomena.
Then the students, being good students, turning around and being able to bring back what they've seen, and do that for recall or repeat. Summarizing the phenomena. And so that's — I think at least at KnowAtom — that's the picture of the bike that we have. What are your thoughts?
Scott Morrison: I think that's a fair assessment. Again, I don't want to paint with a broad brush either, so I'll speak to my experience. When I think about my experience as a fifth grade science teacher, as a 21-year-old fifth grade science teacher when I was hired. Fresh out of college. That was an absolute in my life for a while, because I didn't know any different.
I think it's a model particularly around science, maybe not in every single subject area. I would say particularly at the elementary level, you tend to see this, and it's not the teacher's fault. It is clearly not the fault of a teacher, because that's perhaps the way that they were trained. In my mind, I don't think we've provided the tools and the instructional practices in science — again, particularly at the elementary level — so people can think about how they deliver their information differently.
To me, in this traditional model, we're bypassing the brain of both the teacher and the students. It's just like, "Here's the information; let me transfer my notes into your notebook and we'll call it a day." I think that's just because that's been the model that had been pushed or whatever the case may be, we have not provided the appropriate amount of training, again to our elementary staff — and again, that's just speaking for me and my experiences. I don't know what it's like in the rest of the world. I'd be interested to hear if you we get enough time at the end, I'd like to talk to some folks, but I think that's where it's incumbent upon school leaders to make sure that we are providing the training and development, because it is that important.
I think shame on us and public ed that, again, in my experience, the majority of kids don't get any sort of organized science until sixth grade in a lot of places. This is me now talking to people outside of my district and then having conversations with colleagues from across the state. Science — when I came here to this district, we did an audit. We did a time audit to try to figure out, "Where are we spending our time?" In some cases, science was 2:30 on a Friday, and that's really not science, right? That's just being able to say you did some science.
Again, that's not the teacher's fault. It's the way that things have been set up in the past, and I think we need to make a conscientious effort to go about and changing this because — again, if we go back to this idea of practices and higher-order thinking — science, technology, engineering, math: These are the great subjects for us to do this in.
Francis Vigeant: Mm-hmm. I was just going to ask about that, because when you think about these next-generation science and engineering practices which are now a part of the Next Generation Science Standards, it's one of the foundations. It's a part of the standards here as of January 26th in Massachusetts — science and engineering practices.
They've been part of your district at least as far as I know we've been there. How do you see these crossing over into other disciplines? Particularly ELA and math, where I think it doesn't surprise me at all that you did a time audit and found science being low man on the totem pole, especially when No Child Left Behind was much more in-focus than it is now, but nonetheless, it created these habits.
The thing is, there is an element of oversight there in the sense that is science and engineering in these practices useful to the other disciplines? Is it a forum for them in some way?
Scott Morrison: I think it certainly is and I think, again, I have found when you talk about pragmatically. When I've done presentations rather around the district here in terms of sharing information about the new science and engineering standards and really trying to help staff make meaning. Right, again if we go back to Romelli’s quote on, "Meaning-making is the root of perseverance," I think one of the things I connected this to is, I would say to the teachers, "Where else do you use practices?"
Folks think on it a minute, and I say writing practices and processes, because we talk about a process just being an ordered set of practices. They said, "Oh, well, we have a writing process." I said, "Exactly. So what's your writing process?" and they say, "Well, you do pre-writing and then you do some drafting and editing," and whatever the order is. That's not on my brain right now, but the whole writing process is a process that folks are familiar with.
So I say to them, "Okay, does the order matter?" "Yup, the order matters. Absolutely it matters." Some kids like to think their final copy is their first draft. The order definitely matters. When we make that connection to the writing process and we say to them, "Right. So the writing process is just an ordered set of practices that students engage in when they're writing," it's no different in science and engineering.
We have a set of practices here that we want our students to engage in, and when I look at these practices — if you just look up those Bloom words, analyzing, planning, developing, constructing, evaluating, communicating. That's all higher order. You go back to Bloom, 1956 — Bloom's taxonomy, his tiered taxonomy of cognitive thinking — and I think when we think about that, I think too often school is focused on more of that rote and I think if we can't... Beautiful. Hey, nicely timed. I think if we can...
Francis Vigeant: I'm telling you.
Scott Morrison: That's good. I think if we can move our students up into that higher-order thinking — creating, evaluating, analyzing, and I love that idea of taking information apart — and exploring the relationships, and critically examining, and making judgments, and using information to create something new: These are life skills, right?
I want my nieces — when they graduate from college and head off to the world — I want them to be able to analyze their first contract and evaluate a home inspection if they're buying a home or whatever the case may be. Those are skills that we certainly need to cultivate, and they're beyond just skills for school. They're life skills in many ways. This is where I see science being just fertile ground for us to really begin to develop this.
Again, I'll go back to my number of 2028. This is exactly what I'm talking about. What will the world look like in 2028? I don't know if the kids are going to have to memorize their 50 states and capitals by 2028. I'm not sure if that will still be in the curriculum, but boy, I bet you they're certainly going to have to know how to evaluate, create, and analyze, and construct and communicate and collaborate and do all those other things so we can build that infrastructure in from K through 12. Boy do we have a good chance of really making some changes here.
Francis Vigeant: Well, I'm glad you brought up higher-order thinking, because this is a slide we often use just to talk about that, and you'll notice that we've reorganized it. Your Bloom's taxonomy is traditionally a six-level: Remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create, right?
Scott Morrison: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Francis Vigeant: What we've done is really thinking about the role of science and engineering through the lens of Next Generation Science Standards, and then I think really true to what the disciplines are that creating, evaluating, and analyzing happen simultaneously. To your point, you don't go to buy a house and say, "Well, okay. We're only going to analyze; we're not going to evaluate." These things happen simultaneously, and I think the creative aspect too oftentimes is in finding a solution because nothing is really perfect.
That could be a house you walk into. We're from New England, so there's an awful lot of older homes here, and nothing's perfect. You have to have creative solutions sometimes. I think about what you were just sharing also, and I think about some of a discussion I had with some of our partners in Israel and in our programs in Iraq, because they said what's really interesting is that these skills — to be able to create, evaluate, and analyze — are social-emotional coping mechanisms, really.
Scott Morrison: That's exactly right.
Francis Vigeant: They said that. I had never really thought of it that way, and I think in your example of buying a house or something like this, it's like, "How often do you have all the resources you'd need for anything in your life?"
You think about sitting down to write an essay, even. It's like you have to brainstorm. You don't even have all the ideas right? It's a creative process. Then there's an evaluative and analytical piece of this too, and norming, and that's ELA.
Anyway, so not to riff too much on this, but I think you bring up a really great point. One of the other slides that you provided, which I'd like to share with folks before we move a little further down the road here in our discussion, is this idea of...
Scott Morrison: I love that idea.
Francis Vigeant: How we create this environment and, as you mentioned, KnowAtom, so that was nice of you. What do you mean with this diagram and how we create a learning environment for this, and this being higher-order thinking, and specifically the practices and processes, and what the Next Generation Science Standards are requiring of educators and districts?
Scott Morrison: Again, I think if we think abou
