Researching What for Why? |
| I enjoy research. I spend much of my time reading it. I also often find myself in sustained and vigorous conversations with colleagues from some of the leading research institutions from around the world...and it's time that I value very much. Indeed, the Foundation maintains a register of some of the leading research around 1-to-1 on our site....however, I am also sick and tried of the unrelenting practice of political leaders and educational policy makers who continually seek to justify inaction and limit the scope for innovation in the name of research. One only has to review the mountains of literature around the most effective ways to teach reading and the efficacy of small classes to conclude that too much educational research is based on loose assumptions, inappropriate methodologies, a blatant lack of rigor and ideological bias. Too often the funding base for educational research creates preconceptions about the outcomes, real or perceived, and the volume of research that swamps the education market seems to be more related to tenure or the attraction for doctoral topics, than a genuine need. It really is about time we took stock of the situation. For more than three decades we have seen an increasing stream of research that has targeted our use of technology in schools. What purpose has much of it served, other than to often significantly distract educators from continuing to develop innovative practice, and seek new ways to engage young learners. How can we support innovative teachers taking risks, if every move is covered by a researcher measuring outcomes? Where was the research to back so many of our current, dubious, practices in education? How indeed did all the mountains of research around computer use in schools in the 80's and 90's not condemn the grossly ineffective use of computer labs, instead of working on the assumption they were inevitable? Where is the parallel to our leading corporations, where good ideas, are keenly sought, encouraged, incubated, and then reviewed for their effectiveness and impact? When we are in midst of a time of potentially enormous transformation in our schools, not least through the integration of technology, it is time that we reflected more closely on the purpose, effectiveness and impact of much of the research that is being carried out. Why don't we start by working on the culture of our schools, and encourage those that are seeking to create a culture of innovation. Why don't we start thinking carefully about what it really means to support risk-taking in our schools; it seems the only risks people are interested in are about the evils of the net and beyond...how about we support our educational leaders who are creating new agendas for learning within their schools and seeking to genuinely leverage technology within an immersive environment to truly create worthwhile, authentic learning opportunities. To do this, they must make mistakes, and we don't need research to identify every single one of them. What we need is a dynamic, constructive culture in our schools that builds reflective practice into innovation; that sets action research that is embedded into daily practice, and that seeks to continually improve the opportunities offered to young people. With that sort of confidence in the teaching profession, with the sort of freedom that truly reflects the professional teacher, the research that will follow will at last be of real value to the lives of the students in our classrooms. Interested in your thoughts...regards. |
| November 9th, 2011 @ 11:57AM | 0 Comments | Post a Comment |
Whatever Happened To The Revolution? |
| After having the luxury of spending several days attending sessions at three recent conferences in three countries, I am overcome by how little time is being spent on the real issues I feel we should be addressing. Despite all protestations, most of the sessions that I attend are perennially focused on either the ‘technology’; to wit… the ‘pocket-electronic-whiteboards’,or ‘ipad religious fervor’, or the ‘tools’… and I know this is also hallowed ground, but goodness how many times do we have to schedule sessions to “teach” someone how to blog? When do we get to focus our best thinking on what it all makes possible for young people? When will we see some seriously bold and ambitious examples of what universal technology access can enable for learners? We’ve had the baby steps, the incrementalism, the ‘two steps forward, one step back’…now is the time surely for the revolution…or at least a glimmer of genuine transformation. In talking about revolutions, I’m most mindful of the $2 billion spent in my home country, Australia, under the banner of what is called the “Digital Education Revolution”. It was spent with the aim of meeting an election promise to provide one million students across the country with access to a computer while they were at school. Yes, you heard right. Not universal 24/7 access for learning within a contemporary context, but rather a narrowly based election promise around hardware….and no vision. Fortunately in Australia however, much was restored through the energy and focus of State Education jurisdictions, most notably in Victoria and Queensland, along with some great work at the systemic level in the Catholic sector. So has there been a revolution? Well if there has, I’ve missed it. But I can report there has been some exceptional work at the individual school and classroom level, and who knows-- even a Federal education bureaucracy as conservative and limited as Australia’s hasn’t been able to stifle great innovators or their students once the technology rabbit gets out of the hat! So what does this mean? Well it gives hope that great change is coming, despite every effort being made to hold it back; it means we must not ever believe a lack of political vision will stop the inevitable fundamental change that is looming for our schools, and it reinforces my earlier thoughts about the critical importance of us engaging in conversations around what really matters…and what is truly worth doing. This was the important learning we reflected on in our recent ‘Right to Learn’ paper, and it is now even more important as we see exponentially growing numbers of young people around the world getting universal access to their own personal portable computer. Viva la Revolution…a revolution not of technology, but of ideas!! ….as always, I’m interested in your thoughts… |
| September 14th, 2011 @ 12:56PM | 2 Comments | Post a Comment |
Bring Your Own What, and Why? |
| At several recent conferences at which I have been speaking, there has been a lot of interest in the concept of students bringing their own computers, laptops, technology or devices…depending on how you like your acronym. I think it warrants further discussion. On the surface it would seem natural that this is something AALF would fully support, and, in broad principle, of course we do. Our vision is for every child to have access to his or her own ‘personal portable computer’ to enable more powerful learning experiences..and, in part this is what is driving the current fascination with BYO. However, I fear there is much more to this than meets the eye. First, there is motivation. There is no question that much of this discussion has been led by the dramatic increase in some demographics, with students buying their own various pieces of technology. The obvious question becomes why should it remain as something about which the school makes the decision? The second driver that is motivating this idea is the significant cut in funding to schools that as happening in some countries, most notably the US. A number of school districts and states that have previously funded their 1:1 initiatives through state grants or district funding are now challenged on finding sustainable funding. So then the question becomes, what will students bring? As always, there are a few people always looking for the ‘next big idea”, so currently we are being overwhelmed by the pocket electronic whiteboards or iPads, but discussions usually include phones and any sort of gadget with a screen. Seems the last thing anyone wants to ask is, ‘What will they want to do with it?’ For one, I’m happy if at least there is some agreement that you want them to be able to do basic computing functions, such as easily construct ideas, knowledge, share thinking and at all times be creative. Then there is the issue of implementation. Currently very few corporations allow their staff to ‘bring their own’ laptops…and they usually have 4 to 5 times the technical support; how will schools manage this? …aha, I hear you say…virtualization...well yes...and no. Costs are currently a serious issue and managing such an environment is still a challenge for most schools…however, yes, over time this may underpin an option; but I doubt it is viable at this time. Other ‘small’ issues like low cost software licensing, dependable onsite 12 hour turnaround servicing, loaner machines, security, and the classroom management benefits of a homogenous operating environment also need to be addressed in real detail. The principles on which AALF was founded and on which we have given advice for nearly 15 years still apply. At all times, our priority must be to ensure any 1:1 program provides for ALL students and can be sustained in the long-term and not just dependent on the whims and fancies of political, technological and policy leadership. This has always been at the core of our recommendation for the co-funded and Shared Cost Model of funding. Our early experiences taught us, and many schools, that given that one of the benefits from an effective 1:1 program would be to provide 24/7 access, there is a reasonable expectation that parents should make some contribution for the 80% of the time their son or daughter could now use a laptop for personal use outside school. However, I’m not sure why we can now suddenly expect parents to pick up 100% of the cost...by bringing their own! Given the challenges many school leaders often raise about asking parents to make a small contribution to a co-funded model, it seems a little incongruous that simply relabeling the program with a three letter acronym will erase these concerns and address all the core principles that have to date underpinned the success of 1:1 worldwide. Finally, there is the core issue of equity. You don’t solve a lack of funding by passing 100% of the cost to parents, and expect that to be a viable option for ALL parents. We currently DON’T have any problems with viability, sustainability or scalability with the thousands of 1 to 1 programs currently operating around the world...but I suspect we certainly will have with many of the BYO programs being considered. We are most likely going to see a gradual shift of the responsibility for the provision of a personal portable computer for our students from schools to families, as costs come down further, and computers are commoditized even more. But it will take time for the most effective funding, implementation and management models to be developed, and I expect they will, for the most part, be blended models that provide for all the challenges I have outlined above. Above all we must continually remind ourselves to not be distracted from our core purpose. ….and as always, I’m most interested in your thoughts… Best regards, Bruce. |
| July 13th, 2011 @ 5:36PM | 3 Comments | Post a Comment |
Agile Pedagogy |
| After spending a good part of the past 18 months talking with teachers, and visiting schools across many countries, I’m challenged by the incremental nature of any change that has come as a result of the significant increase in student access to technology. It’s not that we shouldn’t celebrate any shift, even if it is small, nor that the rate of any transformation is as important as the long-term impact, but…why so little?...and before the technology skeptics jump in with their standard shrill cries, I would hope that by now, most of us agree that the challenge lies clearly in how we more effectively execute the vision around technology use in schools, rather than the vision itself. Take the teaching of science as an example. Given the extent to which technology is today embedded at every level of scientific endeavor, why is there so little embedded in our teaching of science? Yes we do have the extraordinary examples such as the Science Leadership Academy in Philadelphia, among others, but surely it is not too ambitious to expect that increased access to technology would be fundamental to inspiring young people about the magic of scientific discovery? What about all that talk about 24/7 learning and learning beyond the school walls? To date what we are seeing often is the use of electronic pigeonholes in the form of portals, which is essentially a virtual document exchange, but little else. Is it possible that in reality we maybe think of pedagogy as a static idea? That like many crafts, there is one, best way, to develop a concept or teaching idea...and that therefore we are not open to new ideas about how we might do it better? In this context we might appropriate modern language used to describe the challenges of staying current and adaptive, particularly in development, and better describe the demands of contemporary teaching as requiring agile pedagogy? In this context a teacher would no longer see pedagogy as something that is frozen in stone, for others to unlock, but rather a as a truer reflection of the art and science of teaching and learning in a contemporary setting. This might then change how we see how our teaching tasks. About first and foremost being relevant, adaptive, and, by implication, always curious about how we might use emerging ideas and technologies to create more exciting worthwhile learning experiences for our young people. In turn, this might also change our attitudes to how we source some of these ideas…away from a traditional model of whole-day withdrawal workshops to just-in-time, on-the-job access to online ideaslabs; from set courses and content, to coaching and mentoring…and from a static, carved-in-stone notion of teaching to a fresh, dynamic concept around agility, adaptability and vibrancy. ….as always, I’m interested in your thoughts… |
| May 11th, 2011 @ 1:01PM | 2 Comments | Post a Comment |
What Happens When We Get to 1 to 10 Million? |
| It seems not so long ago when our discussions around 1:1 were focused on individual schools that were seeking to pioneer the possibilities technology-richness might provide for our young people. We were looking for individual teachers possessed by a passion for the possibilities; individual hero leaders driven to explore new boundaries, and individual educational leaders who had seen a glimpse of what universal access could mean for their young people. It was as far from scale as anyone could imagine, with the focus firstly on sustainability, supporting the champions, driven by the impact of what others saw happening in these isolated classrooms and schools. But it worked. What started in one school, became two then ten, then states, countries and soon scale became a real possibility. Maine crossed new boundaries as a whole state bought in, and before long we saw Portugal, Uruguay and many more whole countries catch the contagion of 1:1. It now seems almost surreal, while at the same time very real; that forty years after the idea, twenty years after the seed was planted, we are at a point that at one time was simply a dream. Current best estimates from educational and industry leaders I spoke with during the BETT week in the UK suggest that by the end of 2011 we will see more than ten million young people in K-12 with their own personal portable computers in 1:1 initiatives across more than 30 countries around the world. So it’s time to celebrate….or is it? When so many people measure success in numbers we can also easily be mislead into thinking that big numbers matter, and in one sense they do. Finally after all this time, and through the efforts of so many, the notion of universal access is accepted as inevitable, an obligation and, in the words of the President of Uruguay, the Right of every child. But now, the time when all seems ‘won’ is the very time for us to focus, focus, focus. Over coming months you will hear and see a lot more talk around young people, laptops and 1:1, but listen carefully, because now is the time when we have to drive the focus of everyone’s conversations beyond very big numbers like ten million. The next challenge we will face, inevitably, will be the backlash from a failure to meet expectations, because for many of the emerging large scale 1 :1 initiatives, there has been an alarming failure to define reasonable and achievable expectations. While I’ve always been one to champion universal access in the most trying of circumstances, it’s only been successful when expectations have been set accordingly, and most importantly there is a realistic program to develop the necessary support structures that will create success. What does it mean if a country decides to commit to a 1:1 program for its 1.5 million young people so they can develop 21st Century skills?...I know it sounds good, and I think many AALF colleagues are fully aware of the implications of such thinking…but what about everyone else?...what about the broader mass of parents and the wider community…and dare I say it, journalists who are left to make their own interpretation of how giving a child a laptop will enable them to be ‘21st Century Literate’? An even bigger problem is time; most countries think in election cycles, and no matter how committed your educational leaders may be, Rome wasn’t built in a day, and all the young Romans won’t become 21st century learners between elections- so let’s start people thinking more realistically about the time for the impact to become seriously effective, and most importantly, identifiable. Additionally in the rush to announce big numbers, too many have failed to put in place some of the fundamentals that respected colleagues within the AALF community have come to know only too well. We’ve tried to provide a basic framework with our 21 Steps program which we developed with Education Queensland, which takes care of the essentials that are too often overlooked in the rush to fulfill political promises. But many of the large scale initiatives that are being announced as election promise pay lip service to such process; the ‘drop laptops from helicopters” approach is becoming increasingly common; sadly. So we are at a critical point and we cannot afford to loose either our nerve or our focus; we talk of educational transformation being a marathon not a sprint, well now we will be tested. Just because we hear of the big numbers we all once dreamed of, don’t believe we have won; this is a much longer event than 20, or even 40 years, and we need to be both resilient and focused if we are to see the outcome our young people truly deserve. ….as always, I’m very interested in your thoughts… Best regards, Bruce. |
| March 8th, 2011 @ 3:04PM | 0 Comments | Post a Comment |
Anytime Anywhere Professional Learning |
| One of the topics that heads many professional conversations around 1-to-1 relates to workforce capacity. We've spent years creating the notion of Professional Development, which I feel too often becomes something someone does to you, rather than it being something for which you take responsibility. Hence the rise of professional learning and learning communities, which is rapidly becoming the more normal or natural means of teachers building ongoing knowledge. So this presents a continuum of learning opportunities for teachers, which provide a diverse and continuous forum for their developments as professionals. At one extreme we have the intense experiences of a multi-day residential Institute; a practice-changing experience which has both maximum impact but is at the same time expensive and not easily scalable. At the other end we have the most common form of professional learning which is found across all sectors of business and beyond...turning to a colleague, and asking "how do I do this?"...the one-on-one short tutoring experience that is the basis on which most people build their basic skills. The teacher as the "lonely artisan" in their classroom longs for more of these opportunities, but as we see teaching becoming more and more de-privatised the use of this format will increase. So moving back from this one-on-one, we are seeing extra tutoring sources coming from things such as on-line forums and simple questions into Google..."how do I do.."; and of course the continuum includes traditional conferences, inservice workshops and a complete spectrum of choices. However there are three resources that are emerging as the most influential in providing the most effective professional learning opportunities for teachers, and will become foundation ideas that support the concept of the many also referred to as continuous professional development (CPD). The first is the growing use of coaches to provide incidental, as-required, just-in-time, not just-in-case support and advice for teachers within the context of their class, their school, their school day. Coaching per se is nothing new, but its role in dramatically improving the impact of learning opportunities for teachers, most notably by its ability to provide effective support in context, is becoming very significant. It can be provided regionally or within a District, but is most effective when site-based either across a sub-school, grade level or discipline. The second, webcasting/online courses, is rapidly becoming a more common format for teachers as it usually allows for the thing teachers most strive for, time flexibility. These learning opportunities are run live or synchronously, but are usually recorded to allow others who could not attend time to review or reflect over the content at a time suitable to them. A number of Higher Ed institutions such as Pepperdine have been running Masters courses in this format, while companies such as SchoolKit.com have had significant impact reaching large numbers of teachers in both West Virginia and West Australia. One of the early adopters in the field, Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach and Will Richardson, has been very successful with their PLP courses which are built around a blend of face-to-face supported by Elluminate and Ning sessions. The third has been a sleeper, but will, I'm sure, become a very important professional resource for teachers. Imagine if you had access, to a complete array of short 2-4 minute videos online that covered a whole range of areas that you could access easily, at anytime. They would cover all manner of subjects and topics and would be a forum of great ideas that teachers have found useful. It would have better indexing and sequencing than anything like You/TeacherTube; would have as engaging an interface as TED.org, and would be the ultimate resource for anytime anywhere professional learning for teachers. The essence of such a site would not be the content, but rather the ease with which teachers could access information that was of value to them, and was relevant in their own context. All three forms are already popular in some countries, and will become an everyday part of all teachers' professional learning repertoire in the very near future, and will ensure they have access to ideas and expertise at their fingertips, anytime, anywhere. As always, I'm very interested in your thoughts and ideas around the topic... Regards, Bruce. |
| January 20th, 2011 @ 9:05AM | 0 Comments | Post a Comment |
A Look at What's Happening in Other Places |
| As someone who spends way too much time on planes, I have probably been most remiss in not sharing with you more of my observations from the many countries and people I have been fortunate enough to work with. Susan is often saying to me that a blog or two wouldn’t go astray, but at the very least, that I should take the time to let others know just what’s going on in places that I’m fortunate enough to visit and work with. My most recent travels over the past three months have been most illuminating, and accordingly, I’ll share three stories. Firstly Canada, where I was pleased to be invited back again to the third and final Emerge Conference in August which was the culmination of three years of exploring what 1:1 might offer Albertian students. It involved 2,502 students, 173 teachers, and 47 administrators within 50 schools in the 20 jurisdictions, and each of the three years’ reports from the Metiri Group’s reports plot an interesting growth in thinking about what it might make possible. I only hope with all the excellent groundwork that has now been laid, the next phase of a provincial-wide roll-out might be high on the agenda of priorities. Disappointingly, the New Brunswick initiative, for which there had been an extraordinary amount of preparation has been postponed due to the change of provincial government. Deputy Education Minister John Kershaw lead a great team up there, and had also instituted a very rigorous process to ensure the program they were planning to roll-out across the province had everything in place for maximum impact. We are reassured the incoming government wishes to continue, but they wanted to postpone the Conference I was due to speak at to give them time to review the overall planning. My session in Brussels to address senior policy makers and ministry leaders from eight Western European countries was well received, despite my briefing beforehand suggesting that \"1:1 was something for developing countries-because, well, they really need it!” Given that we spent the best part of the late ‘90’s convincing people around the world that the idea that every child could have their own laptop, was not just something for wealthy kids in wealthy schools, I found the comment amusing, but also just a little sad. If any educational leader in 2010 still wants to question this powerful idea, they should be honest and just say they can’t be bothered. Such legacy thinking is now being overrun by comments from Ministers, Secretaries of Education and Heads of State who more reasonably describe the idea that every child should have their own personal, portable computer as inevitable, an obligation…and every child’s right! And finally, last week I had the pleasure of working in Singapore where once again I learnt much, and took away some wonderful insights. The workshops I was running were supporting a country-wide initiative by Crescent Girls School and Microsoft to share the extraordinary experience of Crescent over the six years of their tablet 1:1 journey with other Singaporean schools. This is an extraordinary school, with exceptional leadership, and when you have a Minister of Education, Dr Ng Eng Hen, who suggests their schools should...strengthen competencies for self-directed learning; tailor learning experiences according to the way that each student learns best; encourage students to go deeper and advance their learning, and of course, learn anywhere….it’s no wonder they are moving along so strongly. As we head towards the end of the year, let’s celebrate the exceptional growth of a powerful idea, that started with just a few 10 year old girls nearly twenty years ago, and today, we now believe touches more than FIVE million K-12 students world-wide. More stories from other places, next time... as always, I’m very interested in your thoughts... Best regards, Bruce. |
| December 9th, 2010 @ 2:45PM | 0 Comments | Post a Comment |
The Paradox of the Tipping Point |
| As we gathered for what was an extraordinary gathering in June at Point Lookout in Maine, for the Big Ideas Global 1 to 1 Summit, I was struck by both the enthusiasm and energy of those who attended, but even more so by our diversity. We came from many different countries, cultures and communities, and yet now, in 2010 we were realizing what for many has been a dream; that there were now millions of young people in K-12 all around the world who now had an unprecedented freedom to learn. But while we were celebrating achievements and sharing experiences, and (some) Big Ideas, I was also struck by the irony of the situation. Here after now more than 20 years, we had reached that “tipping point” where now people spoke about the inevitability of students having 1 to 1, yet we were faced with a set of unintended consequences that are rather paradoxical. It’s one thing for us to believe in the possibilities of what 1 to 1 might enable, it’s another for that potential to be realized; for it is simply the case that for too many, providing every student within a system, state, district or school with their own personal portable computer has been the single goal-an end in itself, rather than that simply being seen as a strategy, or means to a greater goal-i.e. the learning it could make possible. Such an outcome has always been possible, given an almost natural predisposition to be distracted by technology, however in the case of ubiquitous computing we simply cannot afford to let such a shallow interpretation of the goal of universal access to become the predominant model. Despite many years of protestation about the challenges of 1 to 1, when it comes down to it, providing the personal portable computer to each child is actually the easy part; the real challenge is what happens next? Who is going to build the necessary supports and processes to ensure we don’t just see “more of the same” but with a screen instead of pencil and paper? Who is going to provide the leadership and provocation to ensure this “freedom to learn” provided by the laptop, is not manacled and limited by a lack of leadership and vision about what it makes possible? …and who is going to have the courage to “let go” of redundant practices of the past to embrace the re-conceptualization that is necessary for us to maximize the benefits for our students? Our tipping point therefore, must reflect the scale of the transformation in learning experiences our young people are experiencing as a result of ubiquitous access, NOT the access itself. We must be looking for this “transformation tipping point” as the only real sign that 1 to 1 has been worth the journey, and that our focus, energy..and BIG ideas are making it possible. Thanks again to everyone who gave up their time to share their thinking and ideas with us in June; we look forward to building on your wisdom and insights in the coming months. As always, I’m very interested in your thoughts… |
| September 14th, 2010 @ 12:30PM | 1 Comments | Post a Comment |
The 'Precious' Curriculum |
| Let us reflect for a moment. When we talk about transforming learning, what are we trying to say? Put simply, technology gives students the power to transform both how they learn and what they learn. And by transform we are not talking just about changing the appearance or form of the how or what of learning, but changing the very nature of what makes up learning. We've only seen a tiny glimpse of what is possible. We can find a number of stories from exceptional teachers who have taken up the challenge of proving what can be achieved. But, what has been the exception must now become the norm. Our students, all of them, deserve no less. So, we've really only just begun. That beginning meant we had to give everyone access to technology - kids and teachers alike. When we do that we find man exceptional, courageous teachers to show us what is now possible with learning in technology-rich classrooms. And what happens in classrooms around the world is guided by what we describe as curriculum, and it is curriculum that is now the real source of our dilemma. To illustrate, I'm reminded of a story from Seymour Papert that gives us a context....he calls it the Parable of the Jet-Powered Stage Coach. ".....imagine an early nineteenth century engineer concerned with the improvement of cross-continental transportation. Someone comes to him with a design for a jet engine. 'Great,' the engineer says 'we'll attach this to stagecoaches to assist the horses.' When they try they soon see that there is a danger that the engine would shake the vehicle to pieces. So they make sure that the power of the engine is kept down to a level at which it would not do any harm. (It is not on record whether it did any good.)" Seymour Papert. Technology in the Schools: to support the system or render it obsolete, Milken Exchange on Education, July 1998. Papert uses this parable in the context of schools. I think it is even more appropriate in the context of curriculum. For too long we have ensured that the power of the engine - technology - was kept down to a level at which it would not do any harm - to curriculum. We can no longer 'bolt on' to our existing notions of curriculum. We have to rethink curriculum, reconstruct it. We need to re-engineer curriculum. Put simply, our 'smokestack' curriculum is no longer appropriate for a knowledge world. When we give students access to laptops as a natural part of their learning, the door is opened for us to do something significant. Let us not allow this opportunity to pass. Re-engineering does not just mean doing different things, or doing things differently. It means completely rethinking our notion or our understanding of what curriculum is or what it should be. We are way too precious about curriculum as it is provided today; the way we interpret it, the way we defer to it, and the perception we build of the role of curriculum in the broader public eye. If we are to seize the opportunity offered to us at this time, we should start by trying to establish some basic principles that can guide our thinking forward more clearly. Let us first acknowledge that we are not trying to throw out the concept of a reference or guiding framework. What we have to develop are the basic principles for establishing a curriculum of knowledge. Let us examine these basic principles: Curriculum must be built around core values: love of learning, lifelong learning, learning how to learn, working collaboratively. They are already out there and being valued in so many classrooms. We just have not taken them seriously in the context of what is now possible. Curriculum should be simple. Curriculum is supposed to be the guiding light. If we are supposed to be following it, then let us start by making it less complex. We have compartmentalized 'school learning' so much that we have created a repertoire, an industry of assessment grids and rubrics that have become ends in themselves. Let us get back to our founding objectives, our real purpose for it all. We are trying to develop active learners who love learning, who know how to learn and adapt rapidly, and who can build their own knowledge from information they discover. Simple. Curriculum should be relevant and authentic. As Drucker so succinctly defines it, 'Knowledge is simply information endowed with relevance and purpose.' There's not a lot of relevance in much of our curriculum today, and certainly too little purpose. So let us think of learning just-in-time....not always just-in-case. Curriculum should be a living framework, built around thinking. If we keep it simple and focused around our core values, we can do what we like in terms of the strategies we use to deliver it, without losing sight of those things we stand for, our values. Curriculum should be leverage-able. Why do we think that so much of what we learn under the guise of curriculum is an end in itself? It is sad indeed to think that we do not seek to use curriculum more often as a springboard to great teachable moments, to create wonderful tensions of thought, rather than stay within the safe confines it can be seen to offer. In some ways we may have developed a curriculum of the scared. Now is the time for the curriculum of the courageous. Curriculum should be transparent. What is the real objective of curriculum? To provide a purpose, a reason for learning. Too often it does just the opposite. We must engage, excite and enthuse our students about what opportunities learning offers, and we cannot do that if we continue to cloak our curriculum in shrouds of 'you need to know this'. Is there not so much out there that can be learned that our focus should now be on making it accessible, desirable and useful? Curriculum should be rigorous. The minute we start tinkering with curriculum, we are accused of softening it. Why? Are we scared that if we make the wrong investment in the early years of schooling, it will take many years to become evident, by which time the damage may be done and be irreparable? Let us never take that responsibility for granted, but let us also not deny the bigger responsibility we have to all young students who enters our classrooms to give them learning that is relevant, useful, and appropriate for the world they will enter when they leave our classrooms....and in the process it will be more rigorous and demanding than the habits we have delivered in the past. Let us dare to step into the future and stop teaching from our past. Edited and reprinted with the author's permission. The full article appears in Transforming Learning: An anthology of miracles in technology-rich classrooms. Edited by Jenny Little and Bruce Dixon, Kids Technology Foundation, 2000. |
| May 27th, 2010 @ 10:18AM | 1 Comments | Post a Comment |
Repositories, Rubrics and Portals |
| 2010 is unquestionably a time that has given me cause for reflection. Who would have thought when we all embarked on this adventure that we would have achieved so much over two decades?...or maybe you’re thinking the opposite…why has it taken so long! I agree with both thoughts; at times I’m almost overwhelmed when I look back over what has transpired over the past 20 years, at the scale and reach of what has evolved from those early, pioneering days of the early ‘90’s, while I’m also constantly challenging myself and others I work with and for, to do better. In reality of course, it is not 20 years we are celebrating, but rather the vision, or rather sketch, of Papert and Kay from 1968 which was of course, the very first seed any of us had of the possibility that our generation might possess the potential to genuinely revolutionize the place, time, nature and form of learning that young people could experience through access to their own personal portable computer. At that time I was ironically cutting Cobol code on an NCR Century mainframe, dreading its inhumanity, and oblivious to the seed of an idea that has inspired millions since. I reflect on the so many who have been a part of the journey; individual leaders from across education and beyond, inspired students, but most notably those truly visionary early adopting grade teachers, whose foresight and courage to push the boundaries of what this might make possible truly set a path for others to follow. …and yet at times I lament our lapses, in the distractions of so much trivial emerging technology, of language around powerful notions such as transformation, which quickly become appropriated by those at the fringes of incrementalism, and of concepts such as repositories, rubrics and portals, which are in reality too often simply pompous titles to tired old ideas camouflaged to disguise their subversive conservatism. We can do so much better than that..but more about that next time. If you’ve been part of that journey of the past twenty years, take time out to celebrate what you’ve been part of achieving. This is not once in a decade or generation stuff, this is far more than that. This is really about true believers; this is about people who cared enough about what they could and should do for all young people’s education that they sweated, and risked and argued and collaborated in extraordinary ways; they broke the rules about what was possible, they swam against the tide…and in the end they have won. I’ve always believed we don’t celebrate enough about what we achieve in education, and in doing so, we too often fail to acknowledge progress, spirit and valor. Well I’ll save you any thought of caution; to all of you who have made this possible for so many young people around the world, I raise my glass to you...oh, but btw, don’t stop now, the fun’s only just begun! As always, I’m very interested in your thoughts… |
| March 23rd, 2010 @ 2:28PM | 1 Comments | Post a Comment |
