Devices off, please.

A couple of years ago, I was talking to a large group of teachers about using digital devices for learning in their classes.  The session was for the whole staff and it seemed to be well received by them.  After my 15 minute introduction, the teachers went on to do some work on their laptops around what I had discussed with them.
I asked the principal at the end of the session to please send me any feedback about how the meeting went and any feedback he had from staff.  The principal sent me an email the following day to say the staff thought that things had gone well but that he just had a few pointers for me about facilitating.  One of the pointers (his idea) was that I should have asked all staff members to close their laptops while I talked.
Now, this idea had never even occurred to me as I quite naturally use my laptop nearly every part of my working day and expect to see others doing the same.   Sometimes I am answering emails, and sometimes blogging or tweeting about whatever I am listening to.  Sometimes I am researching the background or sites related to the presentation topic and sometimes I am just checking my work schedule.

But the principal went on to say that some of his staff were not on task, they were checking emails and doing other tasks and not paying attention to what I was saying.  I have to say that the tasks that they were given were all completed despite his allegations.  I was quite happy with the outcome of the session but he was not happy with his staff.  I suspect that he felt I did not have control over my audience.  I, on the other hand, was outcome focused and was quite happy that teachers were multitasking in their busy day.
My response to the principal at the time was that he had raised an interesting point and I felt it was a good conversation starter.  We never did have that conversation but I often wish I had the opportunity to open it up further.

Recently I attended another meeting where we were asked to close our laptop lids and put away all our devices while we listened to the speaker as he facilitated for two hours. The speaker spent a lot of time talking and leading the session over several hours which involved some interaction with other members of the audience, and moving around but when some of us went back to our devices after a while, we were directed to close them again
.
Now while I understand how this strategy is useful for short periods of time, but cannot understand how a presenter can realistically expect that learners would not be able to use their devices over prolonged periods of time.  It smacks of the "sage on the stage" unidirectional type of pedagogy that I had hoped would be on its way out.  It does not give any agency to its participants, nor does it allow participants to interact with online content which would have strengthened knowledge about what he was talking.

The argument that devices are distracting is one I have discussed before.  Are they a distraction from learning or are they now an integral part of the learning?  Do they allow participants to interact and process content in may different ways or is multitasking just a myth?  Can new knowledge be created while a presenter/facilitator speaks?  These are all questions that are relevant for todays teachers and learners.  Multiple means of representation, action, expression and engagement are all part of the universal design for learning principles. I think we need to bring these principles into our everyday work and "way of being".

We might need to let go of the obsession for being in charge.  What do you think?

Challenges for Teachers in 2016

As the new year looms for teachers in New Zealand, I wonder about the challenges that face them. There will be new learning and I am not just talking about the new learning of the students, but learning for themselves, more about learning ways to improve their practice.  There will be new ways of working (systemic changes) that their leaders will want to implement and that includes moving towards changes that the minister wants to make.

I have thought about some challenges that I have for teachers.  Before you start the new year, ask yourself these questions.

• What is the purpose of what you are doing? Ask this of yourself in an general sense and then also each day.
• What do you want your students to learn?
• Have you asked your learners and their families what they would like?  
• What changes will you make to your practice knowing the students you have in front of you?
• Will changes that you make improve the learning for your students?
• How will you know they improve the learning for your students?

Now ask yourself if your leaders have made the answers to those questions clear to you.  If they have not, go and see them and ask them the same questions.  Only a foolish leader would deny you the opportunity for that discussion.

Most leaders want the same things for the learners that you do.  The perception sometimes seems to be that you are on different pages but sometimes it is just a conversation that needs to be had to clarify the reality.

Don't go down the track of "them" and "us".  You are all in this job together and the time to try your hardest to make it work is NOW.

My last piece of advice today is to not listen to rumours or ill advice.  How do you find out the difference between good and ill advice?  Check and check again.  I have seen so many instances of teachers telling other teachers what they genuinely think is right, but in fact is quite the reverse.
And yes, go ahead, check out my advice!

A controversial discussion - the first for me in 2016.

A recent post in the Facebook NZ Primary Teachers Group got me wondering about whether some teachers would ever get over the industrial model of schooling.  The post started with a question as to whether it was acceptable for a year 5 student to be promoted to year 7, as the poster had heard that this was happening to a child.

I am disappointed to say that the post has now been removed, so either someone became abusive or the instigator of the discussion withdrew the post, maybe because it was too controversial.  So I have to try and reconstruct it from memory rather that actual postings but it went somehow like this.

My reply to the first question was that it was fine and that the child could simply be thought of as working at an advanced level.  Not "missing a year or two".  Other contributors came into the discussions and said that the child would probably be too immature to be able to cope at the next level(s).  They said there would or could be an emotional and social toll on the child and that a number of factors needed to be considered like friends at that level.

I suggested that grouping all students together, based on their age, was an artificial concept anyway (arising from the industrial model that Sir Kenneth Robinson talks about in this video.  We are still educating children in batches. (Check it out around the 6 minute mark).  The most important thing about kids is NOT how old they are.  Sir Ken is saying it is time to change the paradigm and I agree.

I posted in the Facebook that it happens in work, that people of different ages work together and it works fine there.  But this was met with opposition as there was "not a lot of difference between a 30 and a 32 year old working together."  But sometimes there is, of course.  Sometimes, colleagues of the same age can be quite immature, and others more mature.

The question to me is about should the child work at the same level as their age counterparts or should they work at the level which extends their intellectual capacity?  A modern learning environment, MLE or ILE, should allow students of different ages to work together - emotionally or socially disparate they may be.

I so wish the conversation could have continued.  I am very interested in what others think.

Blogging using the speech-to-text function on your phone

Teachers must show that they reflect to meet the practicing teacher criteria (especially criterion 12) but these busy educators sometimes think that reflecting is something they have no time for.  I have made this quick video to show you how you can quickly do a reflection using the speech to text function on your phone.  You can add images to illustrate your reflections.  Add your thoughts as they flow out at the end of the day (or the beginning).

Have a quick look at this video.

ILEs - they are hard work!

Warning!  In this post, I use lots of "eduspeak" acronyms which I will put the key to here at the beginning so you can refer back to it.
ILE = innovative learning environment
MLE = modern learning environment 
MOE = Ministry of Education in New Zealand
OECD = Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - 34 developed countries
UDL = universal design for learning

There has been a lot of discussion in educational fields around Innovative Learning Environments. Now that a few have been implemented around the country, once again we see a backlash from people who find it hard to accept, make, and benefit from change. This is also, to a large extent, that they don't really understand why the MOE is trying to bring in ILE's.  I think that is because the MOE started by bringing the environment side of ILE's in first without really putting the time into the professional development of teachers who were going to work in these spaces and the education of parents whose children were going to be educated in this way.  

The MOE first started talking to schools quite a few years back about MLEs in their 5 and 10 year building plans. Even if you go to the MOE's rebranded MLE ILE site, the emphasis still seems to be on the environment. Lots of beautiful pictures of beautiful buildings and almost exclusively with primary aged students sitting on beautiful furniture.  The focus on buildings makes it hard for teachers and parents to understand the concept of ILEs.  

So you may well as the question, why is the pressure on schools and teachers to move to ILE's and how can it be innovative if the teacher(s) does not understand or make it so?  You have to dig a little deeper to find out why there is pressure and motivation to move to ILEs.  

The OECD report on ILE's came out in 2013.  So it seems this report must be a good place to start.  But I think you need to dig a little deeper still and understand the nature of learning. When I have talked to parents about education today, they often want to focus on making sure their child does well in assessments and that brings them back to the old style schooling.  

Assessments, in the old days, were ways of drafting off learners who would not proceed to the higher echelons of education.  Behind the implementation of ILEs are the social and economic changes from an industrial society to a knowledge society. Every child is seen as having the potential to achieve and contribute to the new world particularly if they are able to have control and choice over what they learn, and understand how they learn (metacognition). 

When I talk to parents to think about their own learning, and ask them to think about a time in education when they were given a choice, their faces light up as they remember a "project" they did, where there were no sets of instructions and guidlelines about what they had to learn.  They did their own inquiries and can still remember what they learned to this day and how much enjoyment they got out of it.   Ask them about what they learned for exams and they cannot remember.  They usually say to me - oh you are right, I do remember those occasions (where I could choose) and the learning vividly.

This can be best understood by delving into the nature of learning.  Bolstad and Gilbert et al  summarised this nicely in Table 3 on page 15 of their report "Supporting Future Oriented Teaching and Learning".  Learning involves thinking, it is building on prior knowlege but more than just adding to concepts, experiences are critical, it needs active engagement, motivation, personalisation, structure and social interaction, and meaningful contexts.  They conclude that expanding peoples' intellectual capacity should be the kep purpose of education.

 Again there is another OECD report about what learning involves and an excellent booklet outlining the 7 principles to guide the design of learning environments. And this is what should be at the heart of it - how do we get the best learning happening?  Researchers have analysed and synthesised how learning for all students could best take place and this is how the ILEs have come about.

In some online discussions, I have read some teachers expressing that ILE's dont suit everyone,  BUT THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT - they should suit everyone.  There should be ideal elements for learning for every student.  The ILEs should encompass UDL - a universal design for learning which enables multiple forms of representation, expression and engagement.

I was recently privileged to listen to two teachers (Paula Hale and Tonia Fenemore) at Leamington School (Cambridge) who have worked to make the change to an ILE working together in a collaborative way, with their year 1 and 2 students.  What a huge effort in planning and implementation.  Parents were consulted, leadership supported and the two teachers gave up an incredible amount of their weekend time to make this work.)  After a year of it, they have only good things to say about the quality and quantity of learning that happened in their class compared to a traditional model.  They expressed the viewpoint that there were no children who were not catered for in this environment.

They did not talk about the technology which supported the learning but when questioned about it, talked about how it is seamlessly integrated into the classroom.  The students make choices about what technology they can choose and when.  Personally, I cannot see how an ILE could function without the support of digital technologies.  It enables the learners to seek further knowledge, process and transform it into new forms.

If your school is involved in implementing ILEs, talk to the leaders, teachers and parents about what that will mean for the learners.  How will it be better? What can you do to support?  

I conclude with reference to Andreas Schleicher's words.  "Everyone supports innovation - except for their own children."  Change is coming.  Innovation is coming.  It won't be comfortable, it won't be easy and it will need time and energy expended by teachers and leaders who need to work with their communities to make it happen.  It is designed to make learning better than ever before.

Let's focus our lenses a bit more.

In August, I blogged about the Backlash or Implementation Dip?.     Since then, there seems to have been a further media stirring of that proverbial pot. 

In September, the release of an OECD report - Students, Learning, and Computers, added some fuel to the media fire, when it discovered that that high use of digital technologies had a co-relational detrimental effect on PISA test outcomes for 15 year old students in the PISA tests, (research based on 2009 - 2012 PISA test results).  Media frenzy, like sharks at the scent of blood in the water, erupted across the world.  So we spent all this money on computers and they have a detrimental effect on students?  

In short, the answer is yes.  However, there is more than meets the eye to this story.  If you buy a whole lot of computers and do not spend time investing in changing the way teachers teach, then you have wasted your money.  

Innovative teachers in New Zealand have blogged more thoughtful responses about this in great detail, like this blog from Claire Amos.  Greg Carroll's comments in the NZ Primary Teachers facebook group pretty much summed up my own thoughts.  He said "Read the ACTUAL OECD report. (Rather than the media reports)  Even the first 3-4 pages of introduction and the Exec summary. The big point this study makes is about the importance of pedagogy .... like with any tool it is what teachers do with it that matters! Media spin is profoundly unhelpful .... the need for teachers to be effective makes a way less sexy headline than technology being a waste of time and kids failing." 

I have spent a bit more time reviewing the report and watching an interview of Andreas Schleicher  (head of the PISA assessment organisation) through this webinar.  Mr Schleicher is a concise, measured speaker and I have enjoyed listening to him on many occasions.  His quote at the end of the webinar - "without data, you are just another person with an opinion" is a useful thing to remember.  

The data that PISA has gathered shows a link between screen-time and poor performance in the PISA tests.  It also shows that the average amount of screen time that New Zealand 15 year old students were spending in school time was 29 minutes per day.  Most student screentime ( on average, 4- 5 times that amount)  was spent at home.  And, disturbingly, 27% of NZ 15 year olds are spending more than 4 hours online at home.  My suspicion is that students who spend a lot of screentime hours at home are chatting, using social media and/or gaming.  No surprises that these are the students with poorer PISA outcomes.  But without data to support my suspicion,  I am just another person with an opinion.

Let's go back to the 29 minutes of computer time in school.  What were the students doing during this time?  Mainly browsing the internet, but also some communication with other students, a bit of homework, downloading and uploading to the school website, using email, practice drilling, chatting and a tiny 10% of students engaged in play simulation.  Hardly inspiring stuff! 

The OECD report also showed that while the majority of secondary teachers believe in 21st century pedagogy, much fewer actually practise what they preach.  I suspect, again, that many NZ teachers are too focused on raising NCEA achievement to be motivated to spend time investigating how they could be changing their pedagogy. 

Which brings me to another item that I read in the Rotorua paper yesterday where a primary school principal is attributed by Rotorua Daily Post reporter Stephanie Arthur-Worsop as having "groundbreaking ideas about digital technologies....".  The principal is questioning what effect technology really had on learning and so she should!    

The questions the principal is reported to have asked and answered were - "Has it closed the rich poor gap? No.  Has it improved maths and English outcomes? No.  Has it improved student achievement? No. What does improve all those things is effective teaching".  

I wonder where her data on primary aged students is coming from?

The principal goes on to be reported as saying that "reseach is coming through which has found technology to be causing real problems, not just for students but teachers as well.  It's a distraction and results in students feeling isolated and lonely."  I suspect this statement partly alluded to the OECD report showing that 15 year old students who spend 4 to 6 hours on the internet at home often feel very lonely at school.

OMGoodness! I hope that the principals' group in Rotorua spent a bit more time going through the data from the OECD report in a bit more detail and actually getting out of the report the conclusions that Andreas Schleicher and his team intended, rather than the supposedly "groundbreaking" new ideas reported in the Rotorua Daily Post.  

Here are the principal's reported new ideas:- 
- Human contact in class is  critical
- Parental guidance with homework is still needed
- Digital tools, if unbalanced, are isolating and ineffective
- Classes should have a mix of standing and sitting desks
- Collaboration is possible in a competitive education model. 

Jan-Marie Kellow, a colleague of mine, had this to say about the Rotorua Daily Post article, in the NZ Primary Teachers facebook group.  
             " I don't think any of the "new ideas" are actually new. Any tool used poorly without a sound pedagogical basis will be ineffective or even damaging. I have seen the effects of digital technology used well and the results are amazing. Far from isolating students it connects them globally and the creative results can be awesome and empowering. 

               As for sitting for long periods, this is certainly not new, just take a look at pictures of classrooms taken in the past, sitting for long periods was certainly the norm then. I would argue that in modern collaborative, innovative classrooms there is a lot less sitting than there ever was in the past. And having devices in a classroom does not mean you can't go outside for PE or sports."

I go back now to Andreas Schleicher's words. Just putting computers into classrooms does not improve outcomes.  Investment in technology alone is not an automatic driver of improved outcomes for students.   As Schleicher says "The biggest barrier (to improved outcomes) probably is the delivery in the classroom  - Intelligent use and effective integration (of the technology) - thats where most of the work is needed." 

Look closer at this one of Schleicher's slides. Ways we should be using digital technologies.

  
And look at this telling conclusion that he makes

And finally, this statement which explains a lot of the resistance/ backlash/ implemetation dip that I have been talking about:-

Enough said, for now.

The Nature of Learning

http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/50300814.pdf  A blog on this to come.