Sliced Bread

 credit

Today Mick P and I surveyed and observed students as part of Principal Mark’s “Personal Control and Responsibility” Teacher Professional Learning (TPL) session at our campus. It caused some reflective thinking, good.

Teachers had choices to learn and participate by either;

• research ‘engagement in learning’, individually or in groups 
• particpate in “Head Games” or
• complete a group work activity.

Three different learning methods focused on the common aims;

• explore the benefits of choice in education
• share ways of providing this choice
• gather ideas on Personal Control and Responsibility and what it means for teachers
• provide a basis for staff welfare targets.

We choose to research the student perspective on what they do if given “free choice”. Students had been given time on computers as teachers engaged in this TPL. Students were totally engaged in what they were doing. Why?

This is what they’d selected during our 20 minute observation;

• arcade games = 5 (from the simple to extremely complex)
• quizella = answered collaboratively by a pair
• chat rooms
• motorsport news online newspaper
• editing google pictures, “a mash up”
• Japanese Culture and online Christmas shopping
• researching personal interests eg Maitland Gaol

Only half had actually selected games, which is what you may expect all to choose. 

Others selected educational, practical or text based sites. The overiding feature was their collaboration, engagement, learning and sharing.

Many watched and spoke to others about what they were doing and followed their recommendations (”check this out”, or “that looks good, whats the address?”) 

There was chat and sharing, laughter and learning, collaboration and networking. It was certainly not just single students working in isolation at a screen. They appeared to be personally in control and engaged.

It may not be traditional classroom syllabus based learning, but lets face it most of our life long learning is not based on narrow document constraints either. Which do we rather if given a choice? Can our current syllabi be made more meaningful or delivered in a manner that elicits deeper learning and connections?

The application we witnessed from students reflects what choice can do for deeper student engagement and learning.  We should aim to further close the gap between this style of deep learning, sustained engagement and collaborative application so it aligns more to the traditional syllabus requirements. How?

It is a given that any quality teaching is based on strong relationships. We are ‘teaching children not content’ and ‘kids learn the teacher not the subject’ both age old sayings but still highly relevant.

The valid assertions of building strong rapport, relationships, trust, warm fuzzies et al with their students is, or should be, the basic starting point for all teaching and learning.

These are the absolute fundamentals of quality teacher/learner relationships and all teachers should be fully cogniscent of this essential starting point. Do you really know your kids? Do you connect?

It is well past the time to build on these motherhood statements and important fundamentals of QTL and ask how can students engage more deeply with authentic, meaningful learning when the given of strong relationships is already firmly entrenched?  

What do 21st century students need? It sure isn’t what we needed 40 odd years ago when ‘Wyndham was in’. Likewise, it isn’t textbook, chalk n talk, lecture, test, retest, empty vessal education either. We all know it’s far more Plutarch’s ‘kindle the fires.’

Wider research has shown for some time now the value of project based learning, second life, educational games, online learning, connectivism, constructivism and virtual communities.

When aligned and applied well, these methods and theories result in quality outcomes where choice and attention to individual learning styles is strongly implicit. Sure its still based on warm fuzzy educational relationships but tomorrows screenager learners will want MORE of these choices, not less. Nothing to be scared of here, move along.

Many of the properties of virtual environments seem to be conducive for good learning: they tend to be interactive, engaging, safe places for students to learn by doing and experimentation, and they provide scaffolding and immediate feedback.

When given choice, you may think students will only select shallow sugary throw aways but research has shown the balance swings towards deeper learning when engaged with authentic meaningful choices. They want to learn if the project is real; witness hands on prac subjects through the ages. Fairly major motivational/educational advantages to begin with.

Students seek relevancy, substance and clearly defined choices in their learning. This is why so many learning institutions are moving towards PBL and contructivism. It is wide, deep, real learning projects that engage students with and by choices.

Many universities have extensively researched virtual learning communities based on gaming and second life. It is one way of future learning that communities are exploring. (Read the Jokaydia flyer near our photocopier for more information on one award winning educational innovation.)

Another observation about today’s learning was the high level of staff engagement and quality input. Even the boss was wrapt. Imagine sharing today’s 2 hours of TPL with a wider audience. It should of happened because thats how good it was. Laggards see global sharing/web2.0 as just another flossy edutrend, but no, no, no, this time its real folks and all learners should engage sooner rather than later.

Teacher’s will assume more control of their own TPL as the semantic/read/write web is understood, becomes accepted and better utilised. PLN’s are the way forward with meaningful connected professional development. The days of one size fits all PD lectures are long gone, for kids and teachers. Bring it on.

‘It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen’, a lot faster than the education industry has been prepared to accept in the past. I hope the 0 to 50 year olds are ready to teach and learn by it over the next few decades.

To finish I think, Charles Leadbeater’s excellent video ‘We Think’ is in need of a rerun. This content is not new or futuristic, it is now. It is us who need to change. Hope you enjoy it for the first or 50th time. (ps Of course you can’t watch it at work, DET NSW is the pyramid you’ll see, that’d be a silly learning suggestion, watching educational videos at work? no no no)

(Edit: After requisite time and reflection, this post now has a tad more depth, links & comments than the initial 40 minutes PD we had)

Trackback URI | Comments RSS