Tag: teaching

Focusing on LEARNING rather than TEACHING-My Quest

Published on by teachingandlearningnotebookLeave a comment

I found this TED Talk after I completed this blog entry, and I just had to share it. Being a responsive teacher can take many forms as noted in the TED Talk.  I hope that someday, before I retire, our schools can be freed from repressive structures that inhibit authentic and relevant student learning.  I hope to see the day where all high school students view learning as an exciting aspect of school versus viewing learning as something being done to them.

 

Focus on Teaching Rather Than Learning

I have been reflecting on what I need to improve upon in order to foster a more responsive teaching culture in my school.  So, I started to retrace my steps, which led me back to Rick Dufour’s work on professional learning communities (PLCs).  I found this handout online which outlines succinctly the features that define a PLC.  Click here to view the article.  The Reader’s Digest version of the article is below.

A school staff:

  • must focus on learning rather than teaching
  • work collaboratively on matters related to learning,
  • hold its members accountable for the kind of results that fuel continual improvement.

Epiphany #1-  Learning VS teaching

KEY QUESTIONS TO GUIDE PLC WORK

  1. What do we want each student to learn?
  2. How will we know when each student has learned it?
  3. How will we respond when a student experienced difficulty  in learning?
  4. How will we respond if they already know it?

Much of my work to date has focused on question #1 and #2. I need to facilitate my staff through question one and two in a more timely manner because questions #3 & #4  have the greatest impact on student growth. Responsive teaching requires a lot of hard work, perseverance, and a willingness by teachers to change instructional practices, particularly when some strategies, such as flexible groupings,  may require more teacher time from a preparation standpoint.

Early in my career as a classroom teacher, I somehow developed an understanding (don’t know where or when) that my primary job was to teach the curricula.  I could not necessarily stop the bus to ensure that ALL students had acquired the essential learning target requirements because I HAD to cover the curricula.  Now grant it, I didn’t have a team from which prioritized curricula learning targets had been created, but even with this, I am pretty certain that the focus of my work would still have been on teaching versus student learning.    Wiggins and McTighe discuss this reality in their publication, Understanding by Design. When I was introduced to this publication, light bulbs to started to flash in my head and dozens of questions followed.  The following are just a few of the questions that rolled through my brain:

  • What is the point of covering the curriculum? Don’t we want students to understand what is essential to know, do and understand 40 months and 40 years from now?
  • Shouldn’t we have clear essential learning targets that teachers and students collaboratively establish?
  • Why do we invest so much time on getting learners to know  versus having them understand essential learning targets?
  • Shouldn’t the work of kids be embedded in authentic  and relevant work versus learning stuff that is nice to know ?
  • Isn’t the success of ALL learners are our business?

Epiphany #2-Data Gathering

One key aspect of improving student capacity is getting accurate data on what learners need to improve upon. DuFour’s work has identified the important role data should play in developing instructional plans for a classroom. The use of an inquiry feedback loop is integral to their PLC conception.  It is this feedback loop that provides teachers with the opportunities to collectively work at closing  gaps in student’s learning.  Data can come from teachers compilation of formative and summative assessment information, student self- and peer reflection, and other data collection tools.   Student voice surveys and luncheons are another way of extracting data to gather information on student needs.  One must know the purpose for data collection and then utilize the appropriate instrument to collect the data. Once a team collects data, one needs to analyze what the data is indicating.  This is something that typically didn’t happen too often in my classroom.  You see, I was a collector of data during my days as a middle years and high school classroom teacher, not a critical data analyzer.  I was too busying racing through the curriculum.  I didn’t have time  to analyze whether what I was doing on a daily basis was meeting the needs of EVERY student in the classroom.  I don’t think that my narrative is unique.  I  most often missed out on answering the following questions:

  • What am I going to do with data results?
  •  How will the data drive instructional change to better serve my students?

Examining student performance data in relation to essential learning target is something that  I need to do more of with my teacher teams.  I  need to be able to clearly identify / pinpoint what particular curricular concept or skill the student(s) is/are struggling with. Without this clarity, our work will simply focus on teaching versus closing student learning gaps connected to specific curricula knowledge and skills.  By taking time to examine data, we need to  generate learner-centered questions around what roadblock might be impeding student learning.  Questions that might arise could look like:

  • Are the struggles of some students connected to  literacy  or numeracy issues?
  •  Are other struggles connected to the way the concept or skill is being instructed in the classroom?
  •  Does the data indicate that students need more time to practice and that they require verbal and written feedback to clarify their understanding?

I need to provide more time for my teams to strategically and collaboratively select learning strategies that have the potential to address individual student learning needs. As well, staff need time to test the effectiveness of these strageties, and most importantly, come back together to discuss their effectiveness.  We also need to consider what our next steps might look like.   Basically, this process is an inquiry feedback loop. I am stuck on how I can help create this type of feedback loop environment  when my teachers already have a jam-packed day.   I need to think about how I could realistically bring about such an environment.  This brings me to Epiphany #3.ons

Epiphany#3- Regular meeting time

I presently have six department teams that I work with.  Our work is focused upon curriculum, instruction, and assessment.  I will be adding another four more departments to my portfolio next year.  Our present school structures provides block meeting time.  We usually meet once a month, with the exception of the beginning or end of a semester. From my work as a staff development specialist, in two high schools, I have come to the realization that teams need to meet more regularly to collectively grow responsive teaching skills. I think that teams need to meet at least once every two weeks to debrief and strategize on next steps.  Without regular contact, the momentum that is developed in our block  planning time is lost, and there is limited analysis on whether our actions or interventions are making a difference.  I plan on discussing this with my team members and getting their insight into how we might address this challenge.   I do know that block time does provide the  opportunity for the team to roll up their sleeves and get deep into our instructional work.  I see a purpose in still having this type of structure in our PLC format, but I also see the need for more regular contact time, which I think would be less than an hour in length, to examine the effectiveness of our targetted intervention.

Epiphany #4-Shared leadership

In order for a PLC to work, teachers need to take on more shared leadership roles. I am a control freak, and this is something that I need to change in my role as a facilitator.  Often in a department, one teacher selflessly takes on the unofficial or maybe an official role of being a department head teacher.  Having been in the business for 23 years, this structure DOES NOT develop systemic leadership capacity within a department, if anything it burns out the volunteer teacher who takes on that role.  I need to engage more teachers in leadership opportunities particularly those who are introverts and new to the department

Parting Words

I have some work to do in transforming my learning groups into professional learning communities.  I need to constantly refer to the Four Key PLC questions to guide my work.  My teachers and I constantly need to look at our work through these four lenses. I recognize this will not happen overnight nor will it be an easy task for myself or for some of my fellow team members, but I know that I am lucky to work with great people.  I strongly believe that they see value in perusing the following mission- Every Child, Every Day, No Matter What It Takes!

Comments are greatly appreciated.

All the best as we zoom into June/Juen!

Ingrid

 

Below is more PLC information that I have gathered.

BIG IDEA #1-ENSURING THAT STUDENTS’ LEARN

“teachers become aware of the incongruity between their commitment to ensure learning for all and their lack of a coordinated strategy to respond when some students do not learn.”

KEY QUESTIONS TO GUIDE PLC WORK

  1. What do we want each student to learn?
  2. How will we know when each student has learned it?
  3. How will we respond when a student experienced difficulty  in learning?
  4. How will we respond if they already know it?

BIG IDEA #2 A CULTURE OF COLLABORATION

“They create structures to promote the powerful, collaborative culture that characterizes a PLC: a systematic process in which teachers work together in teams to analyze and improve their class

room practice, engaging in an ongoing cycle of questions that promote deep team learning.”

BIG IDEA #3 A FOCUS ON RESULTS

“Educators who focus on results must also shift their attention to goals that focus on student learning. They must stop assessing their own effectiveness based on how busy they are and instead ask, “Have we made progress on the goals that are most important to student growth?”

 

 

 

 

The Right Change for the Right Reason

Published on by teachingandlearningnotebook1 Comment

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 .

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

 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

The Ups And Downs Of Self-Initiated Growth

Published on by teachingandlearningnotebookLeave a comment

I ran across this on my Facebook page a week or so ago, and the message really resonated with me.

IMG_0741

I kept this message in the back of my mind as I met for my second problem-based learning meeting with my colleagues Kevin, and Kelli. I am hoping to add an additional colleague from our dual track high school to make this a Tri-High project.  The above message has caused me to reflect on the following questions:  Where exactly am I stuck?  If I had not started this problem-based learning journey would I ever realize the degree to which I am stuck?  I see myself as being stuck because I know that my classroom  is not a student-centered teaching and learning environment.  I am stuck because I cling to the mindset that good classroom instruction requires strong teacher driven instruction  with minimal student choice. I don’t want to leave the impression with my readers that I am a chalk and talk teacher because I am not.  I use cooperative  groups, ongoing formative assessment, and differentiated instruction; but if you were to ask me to what degree is my coaching and scaffolding teacher lead versus student driven, my honest answer would be 90:10.

I must admit that I am still having a hard time with the fear of the unknown, and I am finding this process a tad stressful. I’m not a person who takes leaps of faith. . . . EVER.  I realise that relinquishing a large percentage of control is not at all going to be easy for me, and I’m not totally convinced this is necessarily a good thing for all students. In the same breath, Kelli has never said that this model is for all learners nor has she ever said that I won’t have to be prepared for Plan B if some students just do not flourish.  Thus, I question WHY does my mind constantly throw up red flags? There is no covert operation taking place because I initiated this process.  Again, I am making the assumption that students will recoil against this type of learning environment, which I have no hard data to support.  I have not considered that fact that students might just dive in and not look back.

From our second meeting, I am really excited by the types of problems that we have sketched out for the Gr. 11 Canadian History course.  These problems focus on inequities facing Aboriginal learners, Canada and Immigration, and finally Canadian conflict. I do believe that many students will be engaged based on how the problems are designed, and learning will NOT be focused on recognition and recall.  Their learning is definitely going to be pushed to the upper levels of Blooms’ taxonomy. During the meeting, Kevin and I discussed how we will navigate our planning around the curriculum’s use of enduring understandings.  We created a OneNote binder in which we sat down and started sketching out content that students would need to explore and began discussing the types of process skills that we want students to walk away with.

This brings me to my next problem, developing CLEAR and MEASURABLE learning targets. The Province of Manitoba’s  Gr. 11 Canadian History curriculum has been formulated around enduring understandings (EUs). There are MANY EUs in our curriculum.  The concepts of EUs comes from Wiggins and McTighe’s Understanding by Design (Ubd) planning approach.  I am HUGE advocate of this approach.   Although I have worked with Ubd for almost fifteen years, I struggle with developing assessments around EUs.  I have developed EUs from outcomes, but  my assessments focused more on measuring the outcomes versus the EUs.  Basically, the EUs got pushed to the side.  I have been creating assessments that link to the finite knowledge and skills embedded in  outcomes.   I find myself wanting to use the following deconstruction tool to deconstruct what the EUs are asking of kids to demonstrate. I feel the need to put in the EU and then work backward but my gut tells me that I’m missing the boat.  I am starting to doubt how well I do actually understand Ubd, or maybe I need to  realize that this is the next level in my learning journey. I always advocate that learning is a journey and not a destination. I am good at giving advice but maybe not so great at taking it.

Microsoft Word - Deconstruction outcomes.docx

 

Without clear and measurable learning targets,  I feel that I can not move forward.  Since I do not have any Ubd experts that I know of in my province, I took  a wild card shot and contacted Dr. Jay McTighe.  What have I got to lose?  I sent off an email last night and low and behold, he responded. He said that he would be able to chat regarding my question today.  Holy crap!  I don’t know if I could be any more excited if Mark Messier, Bjorn Borg, or Daniel Craig responded back. If you are reading this and wondering who these men are, Google them!  Maybe this problem-based and personalized learning approach does have merits for adult learners!

In his email, I received this  blog link which I have found extremely helpful, and I’m starting to see some glimmers of light through the grey haze in my processing.  The blog is called  Performance Tasks. com.  After looking at some of the posts, I am now starting to see a key roadblock in my application of Ubd.  First, the blunt fact is that I haven’t been creating performance task assessments and therefore, I am hypothesizing, this is a key reason why I struggle with using  EUs. I have been creating assessments that link to the finite knowledge and skills embedded in curricular outcomes.  I am fluid and competent in planning backwards from outcomes, but I am not confident in using EUS to develop open-ended performance tasks that will take student learning to a much deeper level.  I still have this NAGGING  question of what am I missing?   I do not believe that Ubd is about a willy-nilly exploration of whatever a student wants to look at.   I can’t wait to discuss this with Dr. McTighe, and I am hoping to walk away with a much clearer picture

My next epiphany from reading Dr. McTighe’s blog is around the assessment of performance-based tasks.  He outlines four different types of rubrics and the DIFFERENT PURPOSES that they serve.  I found this read really interesting.  His rationale around analytical and holistic rubrics has really made me think about where I need to go with my assessment tools.

I just finished my conversation with Dr. McTighe.  What a kind man and a great educational ambassador! I now feel that I can get back on my problem-based learning journey.  Here is what I learned and relearned about the Ubd process, which problem-based learning is directly tied to.  First, one needs to focus developing curriculum around the big transferable ideas that can be integrated within and between curricula. I knew this because I have honestly read the Ubd text and workbook from cover to cover many times, but I recognize that I really didn’t understand it. I had an “aha” moment when he was talking to me about this.  Things started to click with what he was saying.  Growth is like peeling back the layers of an onion.

I find that our Gr. 11 Canadian History Enduring Understandings are very content driven versus big ideas driven.  For example, if we want students to understand that power in the hands of a majority doesn’t necessarily ensure that the needs of all citizens will be equitably met and this reality results in the manifestation of deeply rooted social, economic and political problems that our present day society needs to not only address but collectively solve, then our EUs should be woven around the concept of power versus EUs woven around content concepts.

I explained to Dr. McTighe that Manitoba’s Gr. 11 Canadian History curriculum had approximately 50 plus enduring understandings. He felt that this amount was much too high. If I could have reached through the telephone line and hugged him, I would have.  What a relieve!  I wasn’t totally crazy. I was trying to madly process every ounce of what he was telling me.  Things started clicking for me and then I tossed out an idea to see if I was understanding his coaching correctly. What if Kevin and I were to sit down and review all of the enduring understandings in the curriculum and then from this review we would pull out the big transferable ideas that we want kids to uncover.  Once we have our transferable ideas for both process and content, we would then create essential questions that our enduring understandings would evolve from.  I would hope that we could condense some of the ones that are presently in our curriculum.  He felt that this would be a good place to start.  As a team, we would have a clear picture of the content and process that would connect to the big ideas, EU and EQs from which we could build our performance-based tasks around.   Dr. McTighe also advocated for us to post our essential questions in the rooms so that students could constantly use them to guide their learning.

I can’t wait to talk to Kevin, Kelli, and Linda in the next few days to share my thought and ideas.  I think that we can easily connect our big transferable ideas to the problems that we have created.  We now just need to look at EQs and EUs.  Well, my brain is hurting tremendously, so I am going to close off for this entry.  Exciting day and tons more learning to take place.

Best Wishes,

Ingrid

Change: Fear of the Unknown or . . . . ?

Published on by teachingandlearningnotebookLeave a comment

When I was student nurse back in 1988, improvement of skill set and practice was an inherent component of the working environment, not just for students’ but for certified nurses as well. Nurses were constantly having to adapt to new technologies and techniques that were being introduced.  Having left the nursing program over 25 years ago, I have seen HUGE changes on the ward when I have visited loved ones. There are now computerized IV drips (THANK GOD! Calibrating them in the old days was a PAIN!) digital thermometers, computerized blood pressure machines, and the list goes one.  From my experiences and perceptions, I ask the question – why is change more readily accepted in this environment versus what I have experienced in my  educational environment?

In my 23 years as an educator,  I have not embraced professional change with the same gusto or joie de vivre, as in nursing.  I do not think that I am the only educator who has viewed  “change” in this light.  Part of my lack of enthusiasm is due to the adoption of bandwagon approaches by our education milieu, but I don’t think that I can solely quantify my skepticism to bandwagon fads.  Why as an educator am I more hesitant to embrace change compared to my days as a student nurse?  As a student nurse, I wanted to do everything that I could to help my patient recuperate as quickly and as comfortably as possible.  I watched nurses with VERY heavy case loads engage in collaborative teaming to meet patient needs. It wasn’t a perfect world but change in practice appeared to be embraced more readily, and interest in improving practice was sought out more eagerly.

As an educator, I want to help my students be the best that they can be, but do I really provide educational experiences that best meet my STUDENTS’ needs? Or is the educational experience more reflective of what I can provide, i.e  where my skill set and where my “mindset” are at? I have been really thinking about to what degree am I a student-centered educator, since embarking on my problem-based learning project.  Now after doing some professional reading about what problem-based learning entails and being coached by my mentors, I am not so sure that I am as student-centered as I once believed I was.   I am stuck in the middle of a change situation. . . a fork in the road

My definition of student-centred learning has now been challenged, and I can honestly say that I am struggling.  What I find intriguing is that I am instinctually assuming that this model will not value the skills or knowledge that I possess.  I come to the table defensive with an unsubstantiated assumption that I have to throw out all of my strong teaching practices. Yet, what I have read about this model contradicts my instinctual reaction. In actuality, this model does draw upon many of my educational strengths. Thus, throwing everything out would be ridiculous and counter productive.  So why am I jumping to these assumptions and judgments before I even know what problem-based learning will ask of me? I know that I am a hard worker and that learning is something that I like to do.  Yet, I am instinctually responding in a negative way to a process that I initiated!

I find this interesting because I perceive myself as a person who embraces change readily. Thus, do I truly possess a growth mindset or is my perception skewed?   Upon reflecting on my  first problem-based learning meeting with my mentors and friends, Kelli and Linda, I was deflecting, challenging, and torpedoing rather than embracing the opportunity to grow. I struggled with the idea of providing students with more autonomy to guide their own learning, wrapping my head around what this model will require of me, as “the teacher”, and worried how I would meet all the curricular and assessment accountability components that I face as an educator.   What will I do with the students that don’t buy into this model?  I think the bigger question that I need to ask myself is do all students really buy into the present model in the first place? The brutally honest answer to this question is no.

There was a lot of “I”-focused dialogue versus “student- focused dialogue in my filibustering. Research suggests that adult learners need to see “how” change will be of benefit in order to engage in the change process. The video below provides an interesting perspective on how to overcome adult resistance to change.  It provides insight into how adults may look at change.  The message that I picked up from the video was that adults will engage  more readily in the change process if they see some personal benefit.  Having data that demonstrates change is needed will lead to minimal growth.  I grasp the adult learning concept presented in the video, but I have to grapple with the impact this reality can have on classroom learning.  Should Ingrid, who is an adult and an educator, be able to opt out or disregard research-based practices because I do not see any personal benefit?  My answer to this is no.  What I have learned from my reflection over  the past few weeks is that  I care deeply about my students, but I unconsciously do exactly what the video suggests. I am unwilling to dive into problem-based learning full throttle because I do not see the personal benefit.  I see potential failure which is daunting, and a ton of work that may be for nothing.  I use the premise that the model won’t work for all kids as a way of justifying my apprehensions.  I now am more aware of how my learning bias is inhibiting potential growth.

Maybe one of my unexpected steps in this journey is to sit down and talk with groups students on what they would like to experience in class instead of assuming that I know what they want and need.   I fully realize that for a full-time classroom teacher the business of teaching most often supersedes being able to engage in the ongoing reflective practice.   Prior to my staff development role,  I got on my hamster wheel and sprinted to cover curriculum and meet my provincial mandates, to the best of my ability. But what if I minimized some of the Industrial Age School Model demands, just for a little while, and engaged in more reflective practice?  How might this impact student learning?

In two weeks, I meet for my second problem-based planning session.  I plan to collect data from students on what their “optimal” learning environment would look like, sound like, and feel like over the next 4 months.  I also plan to come to the table to learn and grow.  Stay tuned for  the next entry in my journey. I am going to keep in mind the messages that this video presents on change.   Wish me luck!

 

All the best,

Ingrid

Walking the Walk NOT Just Talking the Talk-Problem-Based Learning

Published on by teachingandlearningnotebook1 Comment

problem-based-learning-projects

As a staff development specialist, there is great potential for my staff to view my role in a hypocritical light.  My job focuses on shifting  pedagogical practices and mindsets, but how often (in the present staff development structure that I work in) am I in the trenches demonstrating to staff what the messy professional growth process looks like, sounds like, and feels like?  Am I willing to open my classroom door and have colleagues come in and observe my practices, at any given time of day, with the expectation that they will provide me with feedback for growth?  Am I willing to be vulnerable in an environment that expects perfectionism?  Am I willing to take on the workload that is necessary to bring about better teaching?  Are my practices truly KID CENTERED?   Basically, am I willing to walk the walk and not just talk the talk?

The answer to this question is, ABSOLUTELY!

Does diving in face first scare me a bit? Absolutely! Do I feel vulnerable? Totally! But the bottom line is that if I expect my staff to make changes to their craft, I better be willing to pony up to the table and prove to them that I am willing to work just as hard as they are. As well, I better be willing to place myself in a situation that most likely will cause great frustration and that does not possess a 100% satisfaction guarantee.  I believe wholeheartedly that my students (every student in my school, not just the ones that I personally teach) deserve highly engaging, relevant, and student-centered learning opportunities. Research shows that teacher-centered instruction facilitates very low student engagement levels and minimal deep learning opportunities.  In addition, teacher-centered  classrooms fail to nurture ongoing authentic problem-solving and critical thinking opportunities.

Being able to meet the needs of my staff is a key reason for moving towards a classroom-driven staff development model. They are great people who deserve the very best.   I want to be a staff development specialist who can authentically demonstrate what teacher renewal looks like, sounds like, and feels like, on a daily basis, and have staff collaboratively involved in improving my practice.  My staff has a collaborative responsibility to improve my craft as an educator, just as I have a responsibility to help improve their craft.  Staff development is not about one person being seen as an expert, but rather a person who is willing to collaborate, share expertise, and take away some of the fear that is associated with change.

The work by the late Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe has had a profound influence on my teaching.  Understanding by Design (Ubd) is a powerful framework that facilitates teaching around curricular big ideas that provide students with more relevant and powerful learning experiences. I know that I am much better at assessment and planning, due to my Ubd studies. Yet, I know that I need further growth in this area because I have not hit the bull’s eye on having kids reach the enduring understanding level.   In a conversation with my good friend and mentor, Kelli, who is our Divisional Communication and Technology Specialist, I shared my frustration at this point.  Now, Kelli is a dynamic thinker, and she is definitely a risk taker.  She passionately believes in personalizing student learning. It was in this conversation that Kelli introduced me to the concept of problem-based learning.

For all of you out there in Blogland who are unfamiliar with this approach, the following overview is what my research and Kelli’s conversation has highlighted to date.  Please note that problem-based learning is COMPLETELY different from project-based learning. The following is what I have compiled with regards to problem-based learning:

1) Problem-based learning involves:

a) students being provided with a problem, and they:

  • identify pertinent learning goals
  • learn and teach each other the knowledge and skills
  • use the new knowledge to solve the initial problem
  • elaborate the new knowledge.

b) students learning the material on a need to know basis

c) students being empowered with most of the learning activities

2) The biggest difficulties faced in implementing problem-based learning are:

  • the mistaken attitude that teachers just pose a problem and then wonderful things happen.
  • the mistaken attitude that students can not learn a subject correctly on their own; “I need to lecture them first and then pose the problem”.
  • the mistaken attitude that students will enthusiastically embrace this approach; teachers fail to prepare students well for the transition.

3)  Problem-based learning (PBL) lends itself to authentic assessment

PBL encourages this by doing the following:

  • It lets the teacher have multiple assessment opportunities.
  • It allows a child to demonstrate his or her capabilities while working independently.
  • It shows the child’s ability to apply desired skills such as doing research.
  • It develops the child’s ability to work with his or her peers, building teamwork and group skills.
  • It allows the teacher to learn more about the child as a person.
  • It helps the teacher communicate in progressive and meaningful ways with the child or a group of children on a range of issues.

I was really intrigued, but I would be lying if I didn’t also say that my anxiety level soared a little.  The structural aspects of problem-based learning did not really freak me out because this structure draws upon Ubd planning.   As well, students still require coaching on at various levels.  What did get my anxiety going was that once the problem was presented to my students, they were in the driver’s seat on how the learning would be accomplished and how their achievement would be expressed. YIKES!!!!  What about students who don’t attend regularly?  How will I be able to meet the needs of students’ going in different directions?  What will my formative and summative assessment look like in this environment?  How will I transition students into this type of environment?  And the list goes on folks!

So with my anxiety in hand, I plan on walking the walk and enter into a problem-based learning approach.  Over the next five months, I will be collaboratively developing a Gr. 11 Canadian History scope and sequence using this approach, and then in 2016-2017 I will teach a section.  I am lucky to be working with another divisional colleague whose is presently  involved in the divisional personalized learning project.  I will be posting articles, materials that we develop for feedback, my successes, and frustrations.  I would greatly appreciate any support that my readers are willing to provide.

It is my great hope that this project will provide me with amazing growth opportunities.  In turn, this will make me a better staff development specialist.  As my brother, Garth would say, “Go big or go home!”

Kindest regards,

Ingrid

 

Photo is taken from:

Using Problem-Based Learning in Homes and School [Web log post]. (2013, April 4). Retrieved February 7, 2016, from http://ontariooakville.ca/problem-based-learning-schools-homes/