/

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 …

2011 Lesson #3 - “Do then think”: take risks

/

Okay … this lesson probably commenced in my early childhood if I count the number of hospital visits from bumping into (stupidly designed) concrete telegraph poles in Auckland, slipping off high chairs to raid the top kitchen cupboards or eating poisonous plants because they looked nice. But the notion of learning by doing really took ground in 2005 when I visited the Icelandic Ministry of Education. Their motto: ‘do then think’. Why, because if you wish to see transformation occur in education, then you haven’t got the luxury of small scale carefully monitored and measured experiments – you have to run with passion, intuition and confidence instead. I must admit, that innately appeals to me.

Peter Pan

This video about wingsuit flying (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Cs-zZ0Qu5Y&feature=related) is a great example of ‘do then think’ in action. I am not advocating that we all rush off and try this – but it is a great example of the power of collaborative thinking and experimentation – even though they don’t appear to have yet worked out how to land without old parachute technology. But that hasn’t stopped the more intrepid applying lessons easily observed in the animal kingdom (think flying foxes or bats) and mixing that with modern textile technology and aerodynamics. When I was small and dreamed of flying like Peter Pan over Auckland (imagining far more efficient ways of getting to school), little did I imagine that within four decades, people would have started to have worked out how it might be possible to fly without mechanical assistance. 

Megachange

Why is this such an important lesson now? Back in 1995 Seymour Papert made the comment that “Some sectors of human activity such as medicine, transportation and communications were transformed beyond recognition during the twentieth century. Compared with such megachange the practices of school have been virtually static …” We are now getting close to two decades since these comments and regrettably there is still great truth to his observations. That will only change if we as educators and leaders are prepared to embrace innovation and transformation based on intuition. We know what works and what doesn’t. Our colleagues have good ideas about this too.

I am now very much drawn to some of the more innovative workplace environments where companies are designing ideas / collaboration spaces as the key feature of their workplace arrangements. IDEO is a fantastic example of this (http://www.ideo.com/) and their videos about design ideas are inspirational. The Coolhunter website has great examples of highly creative workplace environments (http://www.thecoolhunter.com.au/offices). I have absolutely no doubts that if designed schools to naturally encourage conversations in a variety of settings (campfires, watering holes and caves), we would release a new generation of far more passionate and energized learners. I remember seeing a US based design competition last year looking for student input into new furniture designs for the classroom. Regrettably it was limited to desks, chairs and lockers. How crazy? How many of us would choose to spend time in gridlocked furniture patterns in endless repetitive classrooms?

Inspirational Spaces

I have had the opportunity to speak at many conferences during 2011 and a question I love raising (and then hearing the responses) is related to what spaces inspire us as adults. Rarely, if ever have I had a teacher, educator or architect suggest any school, university or institution. The spaces that inspire us to talk, think, learn and relate are the cafés, atriums, large public foyers with casual seating and perhaps outdoor spaces that we all naturally gravitate toward. I can recall countless passionate conversations this year conducted in cafés or small group contexts. Why don’t we build schools like this?   

Back to topic

‘Do then think’ – we will not transform education at a speed that keeps pace with a rapidly changing global context if we stumble toward change in a half-hearted, hesitant way. We must make transitions more deliberately and with more calculated risks. I have watched people observe our work at SCIL (the Sydney Centre for Innovation in Learning – www.scil.com.au) and I know they are thinking ‘but what about your results?’, ‘what about your parents?’, ‘what about the noise?’. If we limit our actions because of these ‘what abouts?’, then we run the extreme risk of producing non-engaged students, kids continuing to drop out of school early. We will also watch the school system step closer each day to the Borders scenario of being suddenly the wrong model and unviable.

We’re not alone

I have been impressed this year with the growing pockets of passionate enthusiasm for transformation in learning. People that seemed to have embraced the necessary ‘risk taking’ to not only advance our collective thinking about learning – but enable deeper engagement in the process. That list would have to include Dr Becky Parker and her unbelievably (off the scale) work at the Langton Star Centre in Canterbury, UK (http://www.thelangtonstarcentre.org/), Bea Beste with playDUcation in Berlin (www.playducation.org), Kelly Tenkely and Matthew Anderson at Anastasis Academy Colorado (http://www.anastasisacademy.com/), Brian Bennett (www.brianbennett.org) and Aaron Sams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H4RkudFzlc) with their flipped classroom journeys.

SCIL – a constant playground for new ideas

Final note – I love the team with whom I work at NBCS / SCIL. They have caught the ‘do then think’ bug well and truly. And it now flows through to students who willingly engage in far deeper learning than we might have imagined when we started to make some changes around the place. I see innovation taking centre stage every day (http://vimeo.com/28448313) and (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohnC3sURgKU).

And the outcomes?

Innovation does not have to come at the expense of high outcomes – and I was very much encouraged at the Simon Langton Grammar School this year to hear them talk of not tracking their students – because they were so ultra-confident that learning arising from deep, passionate conversations, would inevitably easily outstrip conventional results. It is very clear that is the case there. It is also quite clear for us at NBCS. (Okay, I’ll admit to a smile when learning that our top student this year was 99.85 - only 0.1 from the highest possible rank in the state-wide ranking process – and that two of her courses were undertaken in online mode.) We have also been amazed at the depth and quality of the work coming from the self-devised projects undertaken by a group of Year 9 & 10 students electing to join a DIY course.  

However, I suspect that the real measure of a school’s impact on a student’s learning journey would be to track them five or so years after completing school – not the short term memory recall of final year examinations. How have they gone at university? How have they fared with employment? How are they managing their relationships? How are they changing their worlds?

 Stay tuned …

Lesson #4

MIXed mode learning – “way to go”

Lesson #5

Make teamwork, collaboration, and relationship building a habit

Lesson #6

Invent new creative structures to enable deep and passionate learning

Lesson #7

Educators can learn from entrepreneurs

Lesson #8

Knowing and growing the tribe – some amazing educators I have met this year