Sorry, but Grrr!!!
Why do companies that are employed (and paid) to provide internet services to schools think they have the right to dictate what can happen? They don't work in schools, they don't consult with teachers, but they make things so difficult. Since when is Wikispaces a site that is likely to be dangerous? Since when is Voicethread suspect? And to really make me angry, last week I couldn't send teachers to a video on the Core Education site. Really? You have to be kidding! To get sites unblocked, you have to go through each one individually and be really specific about which bits you want access to. Do they realise how difficult they are making it? Many schools just give in to them, which is just plain wrong. It took lots of arm twisting and threats from the people I was working with to get around these issues which really makes me wonder who pays the bills. Who is the client? This has been happening for far too long. I now ask who is the provider when I walk in so I can at least relax (some are good, don't get me wrong here), or get sites checked (but most are really evil) before i start. Time to stand up and make yourselves heard schools. You pay for the service, kick them out if they don't work for you.
Here's a novel idea - they could follow the teaching as inquiry model and ask - what does the client know/need to know and do first. Then they could make sure the client knows how to use the system effectively (we stopped being the sage on the stage many years ago now - they shouldn't hold that power over us). It's us that are using the system so we need to say how it works. And stop with all that 'we're keeping you safe' rubbish. Big brother died in 1984. Perhaps then a system could be created and trialled and then some feedback could offer them direction for changes to make it better and simpler. Utopia? Hmmm.
Sorry for the rant folks, but I've waited for this to change for far too long. I just don't see it improving and you deserve better.
Saturday 9 February 2013
Saturday 26 January 2013
Thinking...
A whole week at the International Conference on Thinking 2013. I was anxious that this would be yet another conference where i risked being in workshops that bored me, in presentations that didn't connect with my world and with people who were more excited about being away from their classes than the challenge of new ideas. But I was wrong. ICOT13 was the best conference I have been to. Why?
1. It made me think. Presenters constantly challenged my existing knowledge without knocking it out of the ballpark. Although the aha moments were thick and fast. I didn't know more than they did, so I was intrigued and interested.
2. I was engaged. I made connections between the ideas, tools, strategies, and my own beliefs.
3. Everyone around me was excited. No-one was there for the free lunch. The opportunities to share, debrief, and hear other thinking after sessions was enhanced by extra long breaks. Being surrounded by that level of engagement and enthusiasm is contagious.
4. It was relevant and useful. It made sense to me, and I could see how to apply it in my work.
5. The presenters were passionate, engaging, challenging, and very experienced. They knew their material, had international stories and experiences.
6. There was a consistency of messages that allowed it to create a big overall picture. And if their messages about thinking are taken up world wide, we have a new and very positive world future ahead of us.
Now surprisingly, most of the reasons above can be seen in our NZ Curriculum effective pedagogy pages; making connections to prior learning, encouraging reflective thought and action, enhancing the relevance of new learning, sufficient opportunities to learn, shared learning ... Although teaching strategies were not front and centre (hard to do in a conference setting with time limits), these still came through clearly to me. It was a grand opportunity for me to refocus on the best ways to get key messages through. Thanks to everyone concerned for kisk starting an exciting new year for me.
Right, off to put it into action ...
1. It made me think. Presenters constantly challenged my existing knowledge without knocking it out of the ballpark. Although the aha moments were thick and fast. I didn't know more than they did, so I was intrigued and interested.
2. I was engaged. I made connections between the ideas, tools, strategies, and my own beliefs.
3. Everyone around me was excited. No-one was there for the free lunch. The opportunities to share, debrief, and hear other thinking after sessions was enhanced by extra long breaks. Being surrounded by that level of engagement and enthusiasm is contagious.
4. It was relevant and useful. It made sense to me, and I could see how to apply it in my work.
5. The presenters were passionate, engaging, challenging, and very experienced. They knew their material, had international stories and experiences.
6. There was a consistency of messages that allowed it to create a big overall picture. And if their messages about thinking are taken up world wide, we have a new and very positive world future ahead of us.
Now surprisingly, most of the reasons above can be seen in our NZ Curriculum effective pedagogy pages; making connections to prior learning, encouraging reflective thought and action, enhancing the relevance of new learning, sufficient opportunities to learn, shared learning ... Although teaching strategies were not front and centre (hard to do in a conference setting with time limits), these still came through clearly to me. It was a grand opportunity for me to refocus on the best ways to get key messages through. Thanks to everyone concerned for kisk starting an exciting new year for me.
Right, off to put it into action ...
Wednesday 22 February 2012
Does Teaching as Inquiry make a difference?
I attended the Inspired Impact symposium earlier this year and contributed to a panel discussion that looked at the question; "Inquiry Learning, does it make a difference?" I decided to take a different slant on the topic and turn the question around. I began by countering "How will you know unless you inquire into your own practice?" I then launched into unpacking the Teaching as Inquiry cycle, emphasising the absolute need for evidence to be generated, gathered and understood if we were to know whether or not a difference had been made. In my experience, too often this is the missing piece from effective teacher practice.
One school I started working with late last year to introduce the Teaching as Inquiry cycle, has now decided to shift from just looking at the data to see what the students can do, to really thinking about what they are doing and their impact on the data. When last year's data didn't show significant shifts after their year long focus on literacy, they decided to refocus on the effectiveness of their own practice. This year they will be thinking about evidence (of their practice), what it could look like, how they will create opportunities to generate this, how they will share it, analyse it, challenge it and build it to show their own progression. The staff will effectively be doing an action research project around what is effective pedagogy for their students. As they are also using the Web as a way of learning this year (note I didn't say they are learning about ICT), the strategies they will be employing to demonstrate their own learning and the evidence they will be able to gather around their students' learning will of course be Web based. Imagine the doors this will open to them and their students. Imagine the collaboration they can be involved in, imagine the places those collaborators could come from, and imagine the level of thinking that could therefore engage in their progress. Powerful stuff.
Now back to the symposium question. Does Inquiry Learning make a difference? Most of us are familiar, even comfortable with Inquiry Learning. If not, this new video from TKI discusses it in a clear way, and highlights the reasons for using this approach today. It's the difference between knowing and understanding. Simple. But incomplete. Overlay Teaching as Inquiry and the picture is complete. Also simple! Let me know how you go :)
One school I started working with late last year to introduce the Teaching as Inquiry cycle, has now decided to shift from just looking at the data to see what the students can do, to really thinking about what they are doing and their impact on the data. When last year's data didn't show significant shifts after their year long focus on literacy, they decided to refocus on the effectiveness of their own practice. This year they will be thinking about evidence (of their practice), what it could look like, how they will create opportunities to generate this, how they will share it, analyse it, challenge it and build it to show their own progression. The staff will effectively be doing an action research project around what is effective pedagogy for their students. As they are also using the Web as a way of learning this year (note I didn't say they are learning about ICT), the strategies they will be employing to demonstrate their own learning and the evidence they will be able to gather around their students' learning will of course be Web based. Imagine the doors this will open to them and their students. Imagine the collaboration they can be involved in, imagine the places those collaborators could come from, and imagine the level of thinking that could therefore engage in their progress. Powerful stuff.
Now back to the symposium question. Does Inquiry Learning make a difference? Most of us are familiar, even comfortable with Inquiry Learning. If not, this new video from TKI discusses it in a clear way, and highlights the reasons for using this approach today. It's the difference between knowing and understanding. Simple. But incomplete. Overlay Teaching as Inquiry and the picture is complete. Also simple! Let me know how you go :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)