2011 Lesson #6 - invent new creative structures to enable deep and passionate learning

/

I am constantly challenged to consider what we need to throw out from our assumed daily practices as teachers. If we come to the topic through the lens of making choices that maximize deep and passionate learning for students, then I have come to the conclusion that there is very little that will survive from the industrial model.

I’ll provide an anecdote to highlight this point. A couple of years ago I observed a lesson in progress on photosynthesis. I learnt a great deal and I have thought about this on mnay an occasion since. The context was in a school in a very deprived area of a large east African country. The school operated very much on a ‘hand-me-down’ colonial model where the assumption was that the teacher was the fount of knowledge, students were there to soak up what they could and spend the rest of the time either copying notes from the blackboard or a textbook. There were about 60 students in the one class, they were seated in rows facing a blackboard and the teacher had minimal training (possibly none). It was a Year 5 class. They had been rote learning the (mis)spelling of photosynthesis for about 20 minutes. They were moving on to a definition to be copied into the exercise books. When I looked out through the door, the classroom was adjacent to a school yard that had not one blade of green grass or any plants – despite the wide region being quite fertile. What was abundantly clear was that there was zilch context for understanding the concept.

What might have been the outcome if the energies and passion of the restless crew of 60 was unleashed via authentic learning: tilling the soil, planting the yard out and then observing photosynthesis in action over the coming weeks.

‘Just do it’

At NBCS/SCIL (www.nbcs.nsw.edu.au; www.scil.com.au) we have been progressively ‘throwing out’ the old. Three years ago we decided that we would get rid of the bell from the start of the new school year. On that particular idea, I was the driver and happy to lead the way. We did it ‘cold turkey’ – no warning, no strategy, just resolve. It has worked well. It wasn’t without its teething problems and for many weeks staff complained that they were not getting to class on time because of the lack of bells. The answer was easy – take individual ownership, create your own strategy and simply plan to turn up on time. I suspect there would be incessant complaints if we were to reintroduce this vestige of industrial factory practice. (We do play music for the youngest students in our K – 12 school, so that there is no anxiety for school beginners to know when they should be looking to go to class.)

In a second ‘overnight’ move in 2011, I removed the use of the very menstrual word ‘period’ from being the describer of different components of the day – and moved to the term ‘learning session’. Students now engage in four learning sessions each day.

We have had ‘Grade Learning Managers’ and ‘Learning Area Managers’ for a few years – but I know we should get rid of the word ‘manager’. It is a reductionist term and doesn’t imply creative scope in leadership. Stay tuned on that one, because we’ll find a new term.  

The next big challenge is to gradually reshape the daily landscape away from ‘timetables’. The optimum would be for students to engage in deep learning, focused around areas of passion. I know this will take some time to achieve and while we still have to keep the mandatory endpoint state assessment systems in mind, we do not need to lock ourselves into factory mode thinking as the only approach to achieve the required outcomes.

An example

In 2011 we trialed an elective class in Year 9 & 10 where the students (teacher or self nominated) had to create their own curriculum. (Read more via the blog of SCIL learning activist, @steve_collis http://www.happysteve.com/blog/gat-project-google-20-rule-in-school.html).

Students needed to frame a challenge – a passion project, create a timeframe for achieving it and determine who might best support them on the journey. We allocated one teacher for the group which met three learning sessions a fortnight and beyond that the students were responsible for their progress. Again, the experience was remarkably successful:

·       Students choose topics and production formats that far exceeded normal expectations

·       Students collaborated very well with the mentor teacher

·       Students created natural sub groups and in some cases worked jointly on a task

·       Students gained a lot of insight from professional mentors, practitioners from related fields

·       Students suddenly became film producers, novelists, scriptwriters, robot creators – a myriad of outstanding creators

 

We have generated further challenges – how do we allow for this depth of engagement to not be squashed in the more routine classes of Years 11 & 12? How might we transition an entire grade to have the capacity to do this in order that we might start collapsing the timetable on certain days and create ‘deep days’ on a more basis. How do we tie this in with the existing curriculum expectations?

An outstanding example from the UK

In October 2011, I visited the Simon Langton Grammar School in Canterbury, Kent, UK. We were specifically visiting Dr Becky Parker and her work with the Langton Star Centre. (@langtonstar; http://www.thelangtonstarcentre.org/ - and via this YouTube link, Dr Becky Parker invites you to join the SpaceLab project: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bup2kCsTYc).

I do not want to move into a ‘grammar school or no grammar school’ debate – rather simply draw from their decision as a school to create new structures to allow what is very obvious deep and passionate engagement. The following is my take on the visit. The school was a school that was touted as a ‘failing’ school a decade ago – but rather than going down the track of focusing heavily on assessment and outcomes, they seemed to have taken a ‘what if’ approach - and with outstanding and inspirational outcomes. They adopted the 20/80 approach – allow teachers to devote a minimum 20% of their time teaching to their own areas of passion, not necessarily curriculum related. The supposition was that the lost time would be more than compensated by an increase in student engagement via passion. And they got it right. I have never seen a school with more passionate students.

The Langton Star Centre (Physics unit) had students differentiating cosmic rays and were busy anticipating the implications for data analysis once their cosmic ray detector has been launched as an attachment to a NASA satellite. As a non-physicist, I learnt more in a few minutes about the different cosmic rays that co-exist in the same spaces as me! Two 16 year old students had written a journal article on the topic and submitted it to a peer reviewed academic publication. It was published as a leading article – without the university even knowing initially that it was written by two school-aged students. The power of passionate engagement!

We were invited to visit the new observatory located in the school grounds – but we weren’t taken there by teachers, rather two students who had been responsible for constructing the telescope, parts of which had been shipped from Australia. One of the students was contacting the solar panel company in Australia to get greater clarity on the positioning of the panels. The power of passionate engagement!

We were invited to learn more about the school’s human genome project where under the direction of a teacher who was also a researcher-in-residence, over 100 students were conducting experiments on the human genome to help decode the essence of multiple sclerosis and contribute actively to advancing understanding and possible future treatments. The power of passionate engagement!

We listened to students who had formed their own society to advance their higher order thinking capacities – ready to take on the best at university level. One of the group was aware that the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer lived close by and after persistent requests got him to come and talk to their small lunchtime group about possible strategies to steer the global economies through the current GFC. The power of passionate engagement!

What was very clear at Simon Langton Grammar School was that when the focus was moved away from a relentless focus on state assessments and outcomes, then far deeper learning was possible. But the school leaders had to take the brave step of taking a risk, based on strong intuition and then creating new structures that could facilitate the approach. And wow – does it work!

Rewriting the script for Years 3 – 8 at NBCS/SCIL

Our major work in this area has been within our upper primary and middle years programs. Over the last few years we have created strong teacher teams who have created collaborative programs for Years 3 & 4, Years 5 & 6, Year 7 and Year 8 respectively. The programs look slightly different at each stage – but in essence allow for a deep focus on literacy and numeracy skills, personalized to each student’s stage of learning, while also freeing up a quarter to half of most days for work on integrated units. 

I love the fact that the teachers are demonstrating the capacity for far higher-order teaching competencies as the program progresses. No longer are the teachers simply classroom managers and curriculum deliverers, now they are mentors, guides, learning leaders and coaches. They are also moving into areas of their own professional passion as leading learners and practitioners. What I really love is when teachers become the creative directors of curriculum modules that involve layers of learning and experience: drawing curriculum frameworks from a range of sources such as Bloom’s higher order thinking skills, Gardner’s diverse intelligences, ‘habits of mind’ strategies and then placing an entire simulated game experience over the top of the unit. I am awaiting this year’s ideas from the different teams eagerly.

What is needed?

This all requires team effort, operating on intuition far more than we have, running with an idea, taking risks, finding new structures, removing blockers, thinking differently, different spaces, team training: in essence a new mode of transport, not a reworked version of an old model. Focus on passion, not the ‘spoon-fed’ curriculum delivery strategies where there will undoubtedly be some short-term successes, but also the high risk of self-learning flounder once the student leaves that environment and has to take responsibility for their own learning. Therein lies the challenge!

Other exemplar

Three other immediate examples that come to mind, which I have visited, include the Kunskapsskolan schools -scattered across Sweden and now in the UK and New York (www.kunskapsskolan.com/), the High Tech High schools in San Diego (www.hightechhigh.org) and the new Anastasis Academy in Denver (www.anastasisacademy.com/). All these schools have taken up the challenge of creating new structures for next paradigm learning – and in so doing, have created levels of engaged learning that certainly stand out.

I’d love to hear your stories of the power of deep engagement and the new structures that you have created or of which you are aware.

 

 

/

The separated teacher - separate classroom model, when taken to the extreme of implementation, is disturbing. Unfortunately, developing countries have only known the hand-me-down style of industrial era education, a relic of their colonial pasts.The children are often seemingly happy - but most likely oblivious to the reality of 85% post school unemployment rate in many countries - largely because they have not been taught job creation skills.

2011 Lesson #5 Make teamwork, collaboration and relationship building a habit

/

Earlier this year I looked at defining the ‘old paradigm’ classroom as compared with a new ‘learning community’ model. What was immediately apparent was the emphasis that is given to ‘separation’ in the one teacher, one classroom model. Separate and separated teachers work in separate classrooms, at separate desks, with separated class groups on separate programs with separate preparation – with students sitting in many instances in separate seats in separate rows. Get the picture? No wonder conflict so easily arises in a ‘separate’ model – tension rapidly escalating in confined spaces that can rapidly become a pressure cooker of emotions.  It is not difficult to delve back into the origins of this thinking from the industrial era – separate actions in a production line gradually contributing to the finished product.

A simple question to ask ourselves in this post-industrial era is why? Why has schooling persisted with this model when it clearly is so fraught with emotional stress, professional isolation and out of touch with employment needs in the 21st century?

I think I was most challenged to think this one through when visiting Rwanda – a wonderful country full of amazing people and a very tangible sense of hope. But one where the model of schooling has been based on a colonial hand-me-down of industrial era thinking. And what is the outcome of this traditional model of separated classrooms in countries like Rwanda? (and Malawi and other similar countries) – incredibly high post-education unemployment because the education system for the large part has taught neither relevant job skills nor collaboration skills. It is often when you see something taken to the extreme – that you can clearly understand its flaws.

Where does the problem start for schools and teachers? I’d have to point the finger at the universities and colleges and question why they have not included training new teachers into collaborative work practices and team skills. I find there is a whole layer of un-learning and re-learning required for all teachers (beginning or experienced) when they come to work at NBCS/SCIL,  because training teachers as a workforce for collaborative workplace models just doesn’t happen. Interestingly, once teachers make the shift and understand the intricacies of working within a team, they do not want to revert to the ‘separation’ model.

Our experience has been that an effective team approach will lead to some very desirsable outcomes:

·       student behaviour issues drop away

·       engagement into learning increases significantly

·       teachers remodel themselves as teacher learners

·       there is a marked increase in creative approaches to curriculum delivery

 

Why teamwork?

Every leadership book I have read, or business exemplar that I have seen, that has a focus on the efficiencies of teamwork demonstrates the same thing: improved efficiency comes from strong teamwork. There would be countless examples in sport and in the natural world. Somehow scientists have worked out that geese flying in team formation are 71% more efficient than a solo goose. Industry leaders in innovative solutions such as IDEO provide outstanding examples of the power of collaborative creative thinking. I have been increasingly drawn to workplace environments which manage to strike a great balance for the employees between engaging ‘ideas’ spaces, comfortable team areas, group tables and solo spaces. In Australia a number of large commercial offices have been designed around these scenarios – in order to readily facilitate collaborative thinking. Examples include:

Macquarie Bank (http://www.thecoolhunter.com.au/article/detail/1701/macquarie-investment-bank—sydney) Stocklands, Blackmores in Sydney and Westpac in Melbourne (http://www.v-arc.com.au/projects/corporate/westpac-bank). Internationally the offices for Google, Facebook, Pixar (http://www.home-designing.com/2011/06/pixars-office-interiors-2), IDEO (www.ideo.com) all have similar design thinking. The evidence for productivity and inspired, creative and innovative thinking is obvious. School leaders could usefully look at these spaces for inspiration as they think about spaces for learning for students, as well as spaces for collaborative thinking for staff.

Great resource

The website http://www.p21.org has a lot of free material for education that highlights the relevance of teamwork and collaborative problem solving as core skills necessary for the 21st century.

So why have schools been so slow to re-think educational programs around collaborative models?

I think the answer is simple – teachers and adminstrators have never been taught to think this way. We therefore all have an inbuilt ‘default’ button based on our own experiences of the industrial model and in the midst of busy schedules,  we simply revert to the known. The solution? We need to reset our default button around different thinking. We need to focus on what it means to teach collaboratively – and my experience is that is far bigger than just team teaching with a colleague. Teams need to inherently understand the rules of collaboration, of team of united goals. That takes time and constant focus.

We held a very interesting seminar session in 2011 where the members of different team approaches (about 30 teachers, a third of our workforce) used the open space group process to define the optimum skills for successful participation in collaborative approaches and then set about to describe the requisite personal and professional skills to make such environnments work well. The resultant statements were fantastic – and a very useful tool for future team members.     

The future?

In the last quarter of 2011, we created a new Learning Communities Framework (LCF).  It is constructed around four pillars (CARE): culture, authenticity, relationship and engagement. This framework will be shaped into an easy-to-digest format this month. The LCF does not attempt to be prescriptive in terms of approach, rather provide the framework for team thinking as they consider curriculum delivery models. Of note is the critical importance of relational skills - learning is a relational experience and a teacher’s role is to create the conditions for learning to occur: a creative director of curriculum. That would appear to be a far more motivating role for teachers on a day-to-day basis. As human beings, our DNA is ‘hard wired’ to be relational. The implication of this is that for authentic, deep learning to occur, it needs to take place in environments where relationships are functional and inspirational. Students need to be set up for success. One critical function of a learning community is to establish positive, collaborative environments with high expectations of student success in learning. Such a learning culture should be actively described, owned and shaped.  

 Teachers are the backbone and strength of the learning community. All should be on the spectrum of ‘good to great’ as professionals. Every teacher has capacity to develop and improve – and a continual process of professional development will ensure this. Staff have much to offer and time for creative contributions to the learning community should be maximised and expected.

2011 Lesson #4 Mixed Mode learning – the way ahead

/

The title for this particular blog had its origin as I listened to a number of presentations on ‘blended learning’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_learning) at the Virtual School Symposium. I have for some years liked the notion of blended learning and it seemed a generally suitable term describing a learning environment where students could transition from the offline to online worlds and back, whenever applicable, during any given task or lesson. At the VSS 2009 I especially liked the fact that it was being promoted as the ‘goal’ for many institutions. Jump forward two years and it has suddenly become a term that I would now choose not to use.

The cause of my angst? It would seem that a number of educational commentators have started to try and lock down a sequence of definitions for blended learning. In doing that, the notion that it now predominantly describes a course delivery option is rapidly becoming synonymous with the term (http://www.innosightinstitute.org/media-room/publications/education-publications/the-rise-of-k-12-blended-learning/). I am completely for the use of diverse media in learning – however, I do not feel comfortable with anything that starts to look at blended learning, especially in the so-called ‘rotational’ variations, as something that is linked to cost savings (staffing), space savings and “improved results” in associated dialogue.

Why be ‘picky’ on this topic?
Read this: “Blended Learning Model description: fifty-five-minute periods, rotating from online for concept introduction and instruction to face-to-face for reinforcement and application. Two to three rotations per day, four days of school per week, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.” “This rotational model occurs in an environment of multiple cubicles, housed in a central learning center, which is similar in layout to a call center. Students attend class four days a week, although the days are longer (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.). Students attend 145 school days per year and receive a total of 1,007 hours of instruction. Typically there is little or no outside homework. Students rotate throughout the day between online activities in the learning center and face-to-face classroom instruction, where a “coach,” or teacher, re-teaches, enhances, or applies the material introduced online.” Therein lies my concern. Blended learning should not be reduced to an efficiency drive to deliver education via rotated methods, even if it allows for teachers to move to a preferred coach or mentor mode. It could be so much more. I have decided that I am not about to waste energy challenging the writers of multiple ‘blended learning’ articles – rather, I think it would be far more effective to create a new definition for what I think should be the descriptor of a learning environment that uses the ‘best practice’ or ‘next practice’ as the general framework.

Reclaiming the turf: Mixed Mode Learning
So what do I mean when I talk of ‘mixed mode’ learning? Learning that occurs within an environment where technology is a pervasive tool for student or teacher use, but not the specific driver of any course structure. What it is not, is a title for a course delivery mode. At its optimum definition, it would include the capacity for kinesthetic, auditory, visual and technological modes to be interwoven and for learners to have the ability, tools and capacity to drift from mode to mode as suitable.

We have tried to establish the capacity for this in all our recent learning space designs – whether new buildings or renovated spaces. Learning environments are supported by diverse technologies, within a Wi-Fi environment. It is also a goal for learners to experience consistency in mixed mode learning environments, regardless of which teacher may be responsible for or have oversight their learning.

What have we observed in 2011?
NBCS/SCIL (www.nbcs.nsw.edu.au; www.scil.com.au) introduced a BYOD (bring your own device) program for target grades – Years 5, 8 & 11 (optional). This replaced the previous model where we had multiple fixed PCs in different locations, supplemented by banks of laptops in a few areas. We gave no specific recommendation for a model of mobile device, rather provided the Wi-Fi and internet connectivity throughout the campus – indoors and outdoors. We have introduced a concurrent strategy to reduce family costs for textbooks and other savings to help offset the costs of the family-funded BYOD program. It was our original intention to introduce this over three years. The program has been so widely accepted and adopted that we have accelerated and broadened it for 2012. Our goal is to move rapidly to a Grades 4 – 12 BYOD environment. We can then also concentrate the use of existing PCs and laptops to K – 3.

Some observations
We have observed a far higher level of individual ‘ownership’ of, care for and consistent use of personally owned mobile devices – and the use in far more flexible environments has enabled an acceleration of more global pedagogic transformation. We have also experienced relatively few issues to do with perceived ‘risks’ of such an open environment. Students are introduced early to being responsible when it comes to using the internet, as well as continually growing student understanding of cyber safety and plagiarism. It’s all a growth process! A number of students choose to continue working on their mobile devices over lunch breaks – and there is total consensus that it is so much better enabling students to organize their own folders and documents on a device that is for their use alone. Far less issues related to finding files or programs.

ADHD Asperger’s Case Study
Some other casual observations – many students who were previously more high maintenance ‘ADHD’ students, have in 2011 very effectively used a combination of technology-enabled focus, mobile devices, together with more flexible furniture arrangements, to in many cases entirely self-manage their distractibility issues. That has to be an enormous win/win!

Interestingly, a few senior students are bringing 3 devices to school – typically a laptop, mobile phone and iPad, in order to optimize their learning and attendant self-organization: laptop for recurrent work, iPad for quick reference to the internet (Google, Wikipedia etc) and iPhone for social media connectivity, camera (to capture collaboratively created mind maps) and quick reference to routine information. In one specific instance this is a deliberate and planned strategy to help overcome a crossover of Asperger’s and ADHD challenges and enables the lad involved to set up multiple documents ready for the different learning sessions of the day. It has been extremely successful in enabling self-management of these challenges. I might also add that this boy also works outside of school in order to self-fund and chooses sports with high levels of physical activity before and after school. Quite inspirational! He is also an extremely good host for visiting educators and very confidently talks about the impact on his learning working within a mixed mode environment.

My best mixed mode experiences?
For me the optimal learning environment would mix the capacity to access information from anywhere via an iPad. I’d have my laptop handy for those times when I prefer to use it. I’d work within Wi-Fi environments with seamless free access. I’d have learning spaces that looked more like cafés, hotel foyers or airport lounges. I would undertake some of my learning via intense collaboration and shared experiences. I’d do some online. I’d be able to drive at my own pace. I’d elect to do some assessments, where and when it suited – for my advantage. I’d be free to take a break and walk around. I’d have access to good fresh water and cross ventilation. I’d be able to mind map, read, write, share ideas, create ideas, listen and learn in multiple ways – and with the choice of multiple mentors. I’d probably include using lots of improvised drama because for me, the combination of kinesthetic, intellectual and interpersonal rigour that comes from drama experiences really appeals to my learning style. I’d focus my learning around deep passionate engagement with the context and content, fun, challenge with the capacity to grow, create, apply and serve.

What’s your optimum learning environment?

I’d love to hear! Describe it for others …