Hack Your Classroom - Week Seven: Handing the power over to the learners

Source: http://novemberlearning.com/educational-resources-for-educators/books-on-educational-technology/

Interestingly, when it comes to teachers not really adopting and embracing technology it often isn't technical skill or lack thereof that is the problem, it is the teachers need to maintain power and control in the classroom. You hear the panic, the running joke that BYOD stands for Bring Your Own Distraction. Well I hate to break it to you, but if the students are distracted by the technology (particularly after the novelty of access to the Internet has worn off) the problem ain't the technology - quite possibly your/their teaching and the students lack of ownership of their learning is. *lobs grenade and ducks for cover*


Which brings me to this week's #hackyrclass topic - handing the power over to the learners. I am really interested in this. More precisely, I am interested in how we do this is such a way that increases engagement whilst still insuring depth of learning and academic rigour. So often we see schools controlling student learning to the point of spoon-feeding students and micro-managing teachers. This is quite simply, not good enough. Why on earth would you bother to get to know your learners, if you weren't in a position to actually be responsive to their learning needs and their interests? Why do schools pretend they are being responsive, when in fact they have published the dates they will be assessing students - how do you know students will be ready to be measured and assessed by that date? I understand externals (at present) happen on a pre-determined date, but internals are not, so why do we often shortchange our teachers and learners but creating artificial and unnecessary deadlines?

So what can we do about this? I suggest the answer is threefold. We can challenge this at a national level by sharing more responsive practices and encourage others to follow suit. Speak up at best practice workshops and challenge anyone that suggests that internals (or any other testing) must be locked down in advance. We can challenge this at a school level. Refuse to, or encourage your HOD to refuse to publish assessment (or testing) dates in the student handbook or assessment calendar. Challenge your Principal's Nominee if they insist on dates being published or dates locked down. Challenge your department to encourage freedom to be responsive around assessment. There is actually no good reason for students in your school to be assessed at the same time (if they are at present). In fact there isn't really a strong argument for them to even be assessed against the same standard and/or all in the same mode. At the very least teachers should be being encouraged to write NCEA assessments that are responsive to the work their students are engaged in. That TKI task is not the best for your students, it is an exemplar, a guideline only.

So what are the strategies we could use to hand the power over to the learners. If you have the freedom to do so, why not let your students create an Individual Assessment Plan. Look at your course plans (which you may or may not have co-constructed with your students) and let them explore the veritable buffet of Achievement Standards available and get them to design how they might be assessed. You of course bring the expertise of what they need to succeed in their chosen pathways, so can negotiate appropriate options. Get them to take on the role of task designer - show them examples from TKI, show them exemplars that they can deconstruct and get their ideas for how they could meet that outcome based on their learning context. If you don't have this level autonomy (and if you don't, ask why not) you could take one assessment opportunity at primary, intermediate or your junior secondary years and present it to your learners as a problem for them to solve. Explain the achievement objectives or learning outcomes you are trying to measure them against and ask them how they could best evidence it. Again, you should be the expert, but your aim is to build their expertise around assessment as well. The more we can demystify this for learners the better.

One thing we are hoping to trial at HPSS is how we can make Level One NCEA less of an event and more of level of understanding that students can evidence a number of ways and captured through their e-portfolio in their early years at secondary school. We want to look at Level One NCEA as a kind of foundation certificate that prepares students to attain excellence at Level Two and above - not just a hoop that they jump through in the same way we make them do so at Level Two and Three....often boring the pants off learners in the process.

Another way we can approach this, particularly if you are in a school that locks assessment down is by simply letting students negotiate the context, the mode and maybe even the timing. Talk to your HOD, your syndicate leader or SLT and see if some negotiation could be allowed - this may be the first steps in working towards greater student ownership and power over how they learn and how they are assessed. Take one assessment and if it is locked down, challenge it. Ask why that date is insisted upon, particularly if your learners are not ready yet. In fact challenge why a whole class is being assessed at the same time in the first place. Yes, I know the old argument that it is because it is hard to manage students being assessed at different times, it's a challenge, but not an insurmountable one. Could the context be adapted to better suit the interests of your learners? If the task looks exactly the same for a whole year group, unless it invites students to apply their own context, then it probably isn't floating the boat of all of your learners. Remember all the students at your school doing the exact same task doesn't make it 'fair', when kids down the road are doing more personalised, responsive versions of the same assessment. Finally, I encourage you to look at the mode and medium you insist you assess your students in. Unless you are specifically assessing their writing/speaking/poster making skills, do you need to actually prescribe they way they convey their understanding? Could you give them choice? Is the answer you just gave based on actual facts and knowledge of how best to assess that student and that leaner?

Anyhoo, rant is over. Would love to hear your thoughts and ideas around how you can 'hand the power over to the learners' whether it be about course design, task design or any other aspect of their schooling. Keep sharing #hackyrclass folk and keep challenging the status quo!

Share:

Getting the "right balance" - just make sure you get "back to basics" in that Modern Learn Environment.

Content vs. skills
Face to face vs. online
Rote learning vs. deep thinking
Individual activities vs group activities
Sage on the stage vs. guide on the side
Teacher led learning vs. self directed learning
Closed classrooms vs. flexible learning commons
Discreet curriculum subjects vs. an integrated curriculum

Is it just me or are all wrestling with this concept of "the right balance"? Is there even such a thing as a right balance? And right for whom exactly?

One thing I do know is, is that if we want to shift from a "traditional" to a more "future focused pedagogy" this involves a shift in this balance. A shift to skills over content, a greater mix of face to face and online, deep thinking over rote learning, more collaborative group work, more guide less sage, self-directed over teacher-led with all of this taking place in a flexible learning space and with a more integrated curriculum model.

But even if I can get my head around this, the more I think about it, the more questions I start forming. How much shift is enough? A little or a lot. Not sure. How do we know we have shifted enough? Much gauging of student engagement and achievement I am guessing.

And actually, who decided this shift is actually needed in the first place.

All of the money being invested in the development of Modern Learning Environments and the Network for Learning certainly suggests the government sees shift as a priority. Or does it. If we are to believe our current Minister of Education, when it comes to Mathematics, we actually need to get "back to basics" and embrace some good old rote learning...so hang on a minute...does that mean that whilst the government thinks we we need to evolve and get ready for these Modern Learning Environments (see last post) we also need to hang on to traditional pedagogy.

Got it. Shift two steps forward...and um, shift three steps back.

Our (NZ) curriculum and many popular educational leaders also suggest a shift is needed, you only need to cast an eye over the work of John Hattie, Dennis Littky and Ken Robinson to name but a few. I can happily accept that. I guess the challenge will be in estimating just how much of a shift is needed, especially as we (the HPSS senior leadership team) are presented with the rare opportunity of building a school from the ground up. Already we have learned much from our local leaders (Albany Senior and Ormiston both leading the way in this evolution), next we will get to learn from some world leaders (watch this space) and finally we will need to be brave and genuinely make the shift.

Okay, so one thing I know for sure, we will struggle (and should struggle) to get the "right balance", in fact it really will be more about ensuring that we keep evolving that balance so as to respond to our learners.

You can rest assured...we certainly won't be simply "getting back to basics" in our Modern Learning Environment.

Share: