I ran across the statement, “Right Change for the Right Reason,” this week while I was doing some online reading. I began thinking about the many innovations that teachers (like myself) are asked to implement, and we do not necessarily see or understand the rationale behind why we need to change. Please see my previous post “The Ups and Downs of Self-Initiated Growth,” which discusses the reasons why I have resisted change- valid and invalid. I would say improving students’ capacity is the key reason for a change. I believe the focus for change needs to equip students with SKILL SETS (literacy, numeracy, inquiry, ICT, critical thinking, problem-solving etc.), a GROWTH MINDSET, and CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE. When I specify critical knowledge, I mean the knowledge that students need to access 40 months and 40 years from now, not trivia.
So how does one go about building student capacity in 2016? Where does a teacher need to start on opening day? If this was a wiki instead of a blog, I would assume that I would receive differing opinions on where a teacher might start. I’m going to stick my neck out and propose that student engagement would be a key aspect. I believe student engagement is one of those terms that throws up different mental pictures for educators. Just like the slideshow below .
Some might say student engagement is about building relationships, another might say that it is giving student greater autonomy in what they learn, another might propose that it involves knowing the types of learners you have in your classroom, and others might advocate the use of flexible groups to close student skill gaps, which would foster student engagement. You see student engagement is a messy term; and often I think that when this term is thrown out amongst a group of teachers, there is an assumption that everyone has the same mental image in their head. From my experience, I have found the exact opposite.
So is there a problem with having differing opinions about what constitutes student engagement? My response to this question is yes and no. I think that often in education we blindly go where we think no person has gone before. We (educational leaders, consultants/specialist, and teachers) often rush into innovations and do not determine the purpose or what success indicators will look like, sound like, and feel like for both the teacher and student. I would not disagree that all of the above-mentioned ideas are definitely linked to student engagement. I think throwing out all possibilities in a collaborative an open environment is a must, BUT I believe that there is merit distinguishing the type engagement we are striving to hit. Different dimensions of engagement draw upon different skill sets from teachers. If we are unclear on our target and purpose, our results will be messy and ineffective.
The Canadian Education Associations report, “What Did You Do Today in School” outlines three dimensions of student engagement- social, institutional/academic, and intellectual.
| Social Engagement | Meaningful participation in the life of the school |
| Institutional/Academic Engagement | Active participation in the requirements for school success |
| Intellectual Engagement | A serious emotional and cognitive investment in learning |
I have attached one of the reports and as well the website below.
Report : Engagement CEA Website: CEA LINK . They have some really interesting pieces.
Intellectual engagement is the focus of my problem-base learning project. I want to have students deeply invested in their learning. The picture in my head with regards to intellectual engagement requires a teacher to possess some pretty sophisticated skill sets. From a curriculum perspective, a teacher will need to be able to extract the big ideas from the curriculum, and formulate enduring understandings (EUs) and essential questions to guide student inquiry. A teacher must have clear learning indicators established to know whether or not the student is meeting the enduring understandings. All of these aspects are easy to type in a blog, BUT this is extremely challenging work. I need to UNDERSTAND what the curriculum targets are asking of my students, which in turn requires me to be strong at outcome deconstruction in order effectively coach my students towards the essential learning targets (EUs). Teachers will need to be extremely nimble in being able to scaffold student learning effectively to meet curriculum targets. When I talk about scaffolding, I mean coaching of students towards the essential learning targets. As well, the teacher must be strong at taking in formative assessment data and on the flip of a switch be able to change instruction to meet the needs of the student (s) – hello readiness groupings. Again, I’m assuming that this is the picture that all teacher would have in their head when trying to facilitate intellectual engagement, and I know from experience this won’t be the case.
Teachers love to focus on activities, and I am no exception. I believe that this is one aspect of planning that connects to the title of my blog- Right Change For The Right Reason. Wiggins and McTighe (creator of Understanding By Design) highlights that activity planning is one of the “Twin Sins” in curriculum and instructional designing. I believe that moving away from focusing on activities first (Pinterest, Teacher Pay Teacher) is a right change for the right reason. The following is taken from Edutopia. org which explains what Wiggins and McTighe perspective on the “Twin Sins.”
More generally, weak educational design involves two kinds of purposelessness, visible throughout the educational world from kindergarten through graduate school. We call these the “twin sins” of traditional design. The error of activity-oriented design might be called “hands-on without being minds-on”—engaging experiences that lead only accidentally, if at all, to insight or achievement. The activities, though fun and interesting, do not lead anywhere intellectually. Such activity-oriented curricula lack an explicit focus on important ideas and appropriate evidence of learning, especially in the minds of the learners.
A second form of aimlessness goes by the name of “coverage,” an approach in which students march through a textbook, page by page (or teachers through lecture notes) in a valiant attempt to traverse all the factual material within a prescribed time. Coverage is thus like a whirlwind tour of Europe, perfectly summarized by the old movie title If It’s Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium, which properly suggests that no overarching goals inform the tour.
As a broad generalization, the activity focus is more typical at the elementary and lower middle school levels, whereas coverage is a prevalent secondary school and college problem. No guiding intellectual purpose or clear priorities frame the learning experience. In neither case can students see and answer such questions as these: What’s the point? What’s the big idea here? What does this help us understand or be able to do? To what does this relate? Why should we learn this? Hence, the students try to engage and follow as best they can, hoping that meaning will emerge.”
Since I began planning with Understanding by Design, I am more focused on targets and assessment first, and then I select activities that will scaffold towards the learning targets. The concern with focusing on activities is that requirements of essential learning targets are overlooked. If we do not deconstruct the outcomes and understand what is required then how will we know which activities are truly worthwhile? Thus, the kids can be jazzed and highly engaged in an activity but if the activity doesn’t meet what the essential targets require then how can we be excited about this type of student engagement and most importantly student learning?
Right now, I do believe that I am making the right change for the right reason. I believe that I moving towards a learning environment that will facilitate deeper intellectual engagement. My kids deserve this. I am fully aware, and I think that I am prepared for the many, many unknown road bumps that I will face. l also realize that I will be immersing myself into what Understanding by Design is all about. I know that I haven’t been ready to take this jump until now. I think this realization is powerful. Prior to this point in my teaching career, I didn’t have the skill sets to dive into the Ubd that McTighe and Wiggins talk about. I think that as a specialist, I need to remember this fact when working with staff. Whether you call it problem -based learning or you call it teaching for understanding, constant ongoing support is needed and constant reflection and team analysis of evidence is required. This type of learning can only be provided with embedded professional development during the school day for teachers. I feel that this type of environment is the right change for the right reason because greater student capacity will be created. With that said, in fairness to teachers, we need to have clear and measurable teacher growth targets that we can work towards. How can I know where I need to move towards if there aren’t any clear targets outlined? These targets can be used for teacher growth plans, which then teachers could use for personal growth and reflection. I think that I will need to be
Whether you call it problem -based learning or you call it teaching for understanding, constant ongoing support is needed and constant reflection and team analysis of evidence is required. This type of learning can only be provided with embedded professional development during the school day for teachers. I feel that this type of environment is the right change for the right reason because greater student capacity will be created. With that said, in fairness to teachers, we need to have clear and measurable teacher growth targets that we can work towards. How can I know where I need to move towards if there aren’t any clear targets outlined? These targets can be used for teacher growth plans, which then teachers could use for personal growth and reflection. I think that I will need to be VERY cautious at looking at superficial teacher and student growth versus deep personal pedagogical and strong student intellectual engagement and skill growth. Finally, if I am wanting to see strong intellectual engagement, I will need to develop some core criteria of what that look like. Lots more work to do but again I feel that I am making the right change for the right reason.
It will be an interesting ride!
All best,
Ingrid
Teaching & Learning Notebook 
I love to see the way you’re mind is processing all these ideas Ingrid, trying to sort them out. The balancing act between self-directed student learning and teacher-direction (control?) is demanding for educators. Sharing your thoughts will give us all lots to think about. Thanks for including me.
LikeLike