Archive

Posts Tagged ‘curriculum’

The making of Curriculum For The Future: The Game

August 15th, 2014

We recently created a game called Curriculum For The Future, and have been playing it with people and gathering their feedback over the last couple of months. This post explains why we created it, what we hoped it might achieve, what we’ve learned along the way, and what might happen next.

What is Curriculum For The Future: The Game?

The game was initially inspired by tabletop role-play games (RPG), where “players act out their role by deciding and describing what actions their characters will take within the rules of the game”. In this case, the game in its current version isn’t too extreme in terms of the roles it asks players to take on. There are no wizard, trolls, dungeons nor dragons. It’s built around a scenario set in the future in which teams of players must argue for different propositions about what the curriculum for young New Zealanders should look like. They present their ideas to a panel of judges (a group of players elected as a “Curriculum Committee”), who must consider the strengths and weaknesses of different points of view and make choices about which position(s) made the most compelling case.

The gameplay itself is relatively straightforward. Our goal was to give just enough framing and structure that players can find ways to be playful and thoughtful with the ideas that are presented in the game. We didn’t want the game mechanics to overly dominate or divert the focus away from those ideas, but we also didn’t want the game to feel too didactic or boring. We think we did OK for first-time game creators.  The feedback, while largely positive (see below), has included a few sharp yet constructive comments which have helped us think more deeply about what the game does, and what it possibly could do, with some further modifications and adaptations.

Why did we create it?

Year 10 students play Curriculum For The Future

We wanted to experiment with creating a process-based resource that could create space and opportunity for ideas about “curriculum”, in its broadest sense, to be generated and shared in a way that is different to the usual ways people might interact with curriculum theory and practice. Depending on who players are, “curriculum” may be something they rarely think or talk about explicitly in their day-to-day life.

One group of people who often have very little opportunity to directly talk about or unpack ideas about “curriculum” are school learners themselves – even though curriculum is implicit in every way to what they experience as school. We think that the question of what students should learn, and why, is one that pretty much everyone is capable of offering a perspective on, whether they are teachers, learners, parents, or anyone else. How deep or well-informed those perspectives are is a relevant question, but so too is the question of whether a game could enable perspectives to deepen or become more well-informed through gameplay. We therefore wanted to create a resource that might open up opportunities for curriculum conversations that mightn’t otherwise happen, amongst people who mightn’t otherwise think or talk about curriculum in these ways. However, the dynamics of bringing together diverse perspectives, and being aware of the different knowledge, power, and prior experiences that people might bring to bear given the opportunity, is easier said than done, as we’ve learned.

But why a game?

Players at the EdchatNZ conference

Curriculum For The Future: The Game aims to give players permission to suspend some of their existing ideas and assumptions about curriculum (and learning, teaching, and school) in order to playfully explore the question “what could the curriculum be?”. Players can try out ideas that might seem outlandish or unworkable in current real life. They can argue for positions that they may or may not really agree with, or even fully understand, or they can take a position they do agree with and test it against challenging questions.

We believe it’s relatively safe to do this kind of exploration in a game because there are no real or serious consequences – there are no ways to “get it wrong” necessarily. The ideas that the group of players collectively generates or imagines during the game do not necessarily have to be acted on. Some have suggested this is a weakness, though I don’t agree. In my view, that’s not the game’s primary purpose, but that doesn’t exclude the possibility for that to happen later, or with some variations of the game in some contexts where that is a key goal. The worst case scenario is that the game is perceived as boring or pointless – but much of the game’s success depends on what players bring to the game, how they choose to play, and what meaning they choose to make of the experience. The ultimate value of the game may also have a lot to do with the context of use, and what could happen before and after the actual gameplay experience. This is something we’ve been talking about with some of our test players, and there have been some interesting suggestions about ways to provide more wrap-around to take the ideas from the game deeper and further.

A work in progress

A diverse team including students, researchers, teachers, and education public servants

We’ve been talking about these as our “beta” versions as we are currently trialling them with different groups, gathering feedback, and continuing to modify and adapt as we go. Curriculum For The Future is a research-inspired resource. In the game notes and workshop notes we discuss some of the research and thinking they drew on. They were initially written with teachers in mind but as they grew we expanded our vision to hope that they would also be useful and usable by parents, students, and other people outside education.

This is where our testing with different players comes in. We’ve played the game with our colleagues at NZCER, with students and teachers at Onslow College, Wellington East Girls College, and Hobsonville Point Secondary School, with a group of mostly teacher participants at the EdChatNZ conference, and with a mixed group of 45 players that included secondary students, teachers, NZCER staff, Ministry of Education staff, and a collection of other people from education-related and non-education organisations in Wellington. We’ve played with student-only groups, and groups which mix together students, teachers, and other adults. We have tried various modifications each time based on the feedback we get from previous players. We’ve played with very small groups (pairs), and very large groups. Every time the dynamics of the game play out differently, and the feedback raises fascinating insights into game players’ experiences of the game. In a few instances, players have seized control of some aspect of the game, which is always exciting to watch.

A diverse team plays with the idea of curriculum being "co-developed with learners"

What have we learned?

Most players say that it is fun and challenging
Only a few players have given explicit feedback that they didn’t like the game, most often because they felt they couldn’t connect with the content of the game, or couldn’t see it’s purpose. So far, these players have been the minority (although there may be others who privately disliked it but didn’t want to tell us). I’ve paid close attention to what these players have said, kept records of their feedback, and thought about what could be tweaked or changed to make it more enjoyable or interesting for them. I’ve also accepted that it won’t necessarily work for everyone, no matter how carefully we try to design it.

It gets people thinking, and opens an opportunity to hear other people’s thoughts, values, and ideas.
Many players have said this, particularly students. If the game succeeds in opening up a space for thinking and talking about curriculum and learning – even if that’s all it does – then I consider that to be a meaningful result. What happens next with that thinking is an open question and a “next challenge”. I invite everyone who’s interested to contribute their thoughts and efforts towards that next challenge.

It is perceived to suit certain personality styles or dispositions
Some players have pointed out that the game might favour people who are confident in their ability to speak in front of a group and/or who feel confident that they are knowledgeable enough to say what they think. This is almost certainly true, though there may be ways to tweak the gameplay to change habitual group dynamics that tend to favour the dominant voices. It’s also still quite a language-based game, and we already know that some of the concepts and vocabulary are hard for some players (students, or people not involved with education) to interpret, and the literacy demands of the game in its current form could be a barrier for some players. Perhaps we could try to take the game in a more visual or kinaesthetic direction. Perhaps we could remake the game based in a completely different cultural mode, style, and way of engaging with people. These are all interesting possibilities to consider.

For every suggestion or criticism of the game, someone else has said the opposite
Some people think they game should be more extreme, more outlandish, and that it should play up the “future” dimension in more provocative ways. Other think that it’s “ridiculous” to include more extreme ideas because it’s “obvious” that the less extreme ideas are going to “win” the game. Some people think we need to make it more fun, while other think we need to make sure people take it more seriously. Some people think it’s an interesting and fresh way to think about complex ideas in ways that open up for spontaneous and creative thinking, while others think the game needs to provide more explicit links to research and theory to help players take their thinking deeper.

What happens in the private space in players’ minds is as interesting as what is played out publicly in the game.
The written and verbal feedback we’ve been gathering shows that what happens publicly in the game is only the surface layer. Whether players leap into the game with gusto, or whether they sit quietly as observers, almost everyone who’s given feedback has indicated the many additional layers of experiences that you can’t necessarily see just by observing the game. Some people have talked afterwards about how the group dynamics in their table played out and how that could be different if the rules were different, or if the players were different, or if the context were different. Some talk about how they felt during the game, whether it was amusement, excitement, frustration, surprise, irritation, terror, or any other response. Are these the kinds of thoughts and feelings that are usually involved in conversations about curriculum? Perhaps not – and we think that’s interesting in itself.

“Everyone’s got an opinion on the colour of the bikeshed”
As we developed the game we had a lot of ideas about variations we’d like to have included. Some of these we tried and discarded, some of these we didn’t try, and some we’d still love to try if we have an opportunity. Our players have offered a lot of ideas too – some along the lines of our original ideas, and some which offered a different twist that we hadn’t thought of. I love the fact that other people can have these sorts of ideas from playing the game, and if I had unlimited time and resources I would love to keep experimenting and trying them out to see what happens. But my wise collaborator, game developer Dan Milward also wryly noted that “everyone’s got an opinion on the colour of the bikeshed”, and the original version of the game can’t be all things to all people… BUT…

It’s licensed under creative commons as attribution, share alike, non-commercial so that other people can take and remake the game in the ways they’d like to play it, or for the people they’d be interested to play it with. We want people to use it, adapt it, modify it. Our only request is that they share back with the rest of us what they’ve done and what happened.

What’s next?

In terms of the original version of the game, for now we’re pausing to think and reflect on all the feedback and think about what might come next. We’re also waiting to see whether anyone who’s experienced the game so far comes back to us with an idea, opportunity, or proposition for a “next step”.

Also, right from the beginning we’ve been thinking about whether and how we could remake Curriculum For The Future as a digital game. There are oh-so-many-reasons why we think this is an idea worth exploring. We’ve also discussed this possibility with everyone who’s played the game as well as a range of other people interested game development and games in education. But that’s a whole other story for the next post…

Curriculum For The Future: The Game , , , , , ,

Playing the Whole Game

April 4th, 2012

Work in the field of 21st century learning talks of the need for students to not just ‘receive’ knowledge but to produce it. As an ex- primary school teacher I am curious about what providing students with opportunities to produce knowledge actually means in practice. How do we provide opportunities for seven-year-olds, for example, to produce knowledge and what does it look like when they do? I found David Perkins’ book Making Learning Whole helpful in answering questions like these.  You can hear David Perkins talking about some of his ideas here.

In this book David Perkins argues that we need to provide students not just with opportunities to practice skills in isolation, but with opportunities to ‘play the whole game’ of different learning areas.  Using baseball as an example, he describes how teachers might go about doing this in the context of school learning, suggesting that for beginners what we need is a good junior version of the game.  According to Perkins, organizing learning around a ‘whole game’ involves engaging learners in some kind of inquiry or performance and producing something such as a solution, an image, a story, an essay, or a model. This got me thinking ‘How is this different from what I already did as a teacher?’, at least in the areas I felt most proficient, such as art and subject English.

You might like to watch this video of Rose Hipkins discussing our plans for a session on this entry point at the upcoming Shifting Thinking Workshop 2012.

Knowledge generation , , ,

Students as co-contributors to education design (new NZCER report)

April 19th, 2010

Another NZCER report has just gone online: It’s called Better than a professional? Students as co-contributors to educational design

This report concerns a sub-project of NZCER’s Families and Communities Engagement (FACE) project which is investigating ideas and practices involved in bringing together teachers, families, local communities and students to contribute to collective conversations and decisions about education.

We aimed to develop and research a process to engage small groups of secondary students in becoming critical and informed contributors to curriculum and education design, and developed workshops to support small groups of students (mostly in Years 9 and 10) in two girls’ schools to undertake small-scale research on their own and/or others’ views and experiences about learning and school. When given the opportunity to discuss big-picture curriculum ideas and undertake critical close readings of The New Zealand Curriculum, students could begin to articulate how these did or did not match their own experiences or those of others, including their fellow students, teachers and their family members. Students also recognised some of the key dilemmas that educators and policy makers grapple with.  Students in both schools presented their findings at a range of forums, where students could also discuss their views, answer questions and pose suggestions to teachers and school leaders, family members and other students.

The report describes what we, the students, and school leaders/key staff learned through this process. I welcome you to download the full report if you are interested, and I will endeavour to get some more blogpostings up about some of the ideas connected to this piece of research that we can all discuss!

Community engagement , , ,

What should the “nature of science” look like in the school curriculum?

March 3rd, 2010

(I have more questions than answers.) 

I’ve just read an article sent to me by a UK colleague who shares my interest in making changes in the way we teach genetics at secondary school. The paper is about “Biological Citizenship”. It was written by Nikolas Rose and Carlos Novas. They are sociologists whose interest in the “nature of science” links it to work done on how the public interacts with science, not to the school curriculum. But I think the things they write about raise huge questions for those of us who work in the school sector. You can access the whole article here.

In this paper they set out to describe and discuss what biological citizenship in the 21st century looks like and how it changes who we are – how we think about ourselves, how others might look at our potential “biovalue” and what we do when faced with a biological issue that impacts on our life (or others might expect us to do). Here are two excerpts from the many examples and ramifications Rose and Novas explore (I added the italics):

… while patients’ organisations and support groups have been around for many years, today we see one notable innovation: the formation of direct alliances with scientists. Patients organisations are increasingly not content with merely raising funds for biomedical research but are seeking an active role in shaping the direction of science in the hope that they can speed the process by which cures and treatments are developed. (p.24)

 …a key feature of the Internet is that it does not only give access to material disseminated by professionals, it also links an individual to self-narratives written by patients or carers. These accounts usually offer a different narrative of life with an illness, setting out practical ways of managing a body that is ill, the effect and harms of particular therapeutic regimes, ways of negotiating access to the health care system and so forth. That is to say, these narratives provide techniques for leading a life in the face of illness. They have a further distinctive feature which relates to truth itself. Strategies for making up biological citizens ‘from above’ tend to represent the science itself as unproblematic: they problematize the ways in which citizens misunderstand it. But these vectors ‘from below’ pluralize biological and biomedical truth, introduce doubt and controversy, and relocate science in the fields of experience, politics and capitalism. (p.14)

Reading this discussion raised huge questions for me about what we teach in school and why – questions about content itself, but most especially questions about what we mean by the “nature of science” and what difference we expect it to make to the ways we teach content. One question I have is “whose nature of science?” I’ve read a lot of research literature that explores NOS as an idea. I’ve come to the conclusion that much of it is a deficit literature. It talks about what teachers don’t know and won’t do. But this is mostly in relation to what we might call an “epistemological” view of NOS that focuses largely on questions of how experts come to make definitive knowledge claims – what Rose and Novas would call ‘from above’ versions of NOS. I think the ‘from below’ actions they describe have huge implications for how we think about what we mean by NOS for the school curriculum. My own position on this is not yet well resolved but I do see it as helpful that the NOS strand of the curriculum is linked closely to the key competencies by the way the sub-strands have been named and developed. I’m especially thinking about “participating and contributing” here. The participatory two-way nature of interactions citizens have with science really jump out of the above descriptions. (By two-way I mean that ordinary people who interact with a biomedical issue can influence the science that happens, not just be influenced by it.) Bullet point four of the science learning area statement implies a focus on current and future participation too (but not necessarily the more radical “two-way” dimension):

By studying science students will … use scientific knowledge and skills to make informed decisions about the communication, application, and implications of science as these relate to their own lives and cultures and to the sustainability of the environment. (Ministry of Education, 2007, p.28)

If we really mean to help students reach these sorts of outcomes (actually do we?) what might we need to do differently? How could you, while still at school, learn to “be” a person who is ready, willing and able (to borrow Margaret Carr’s framing of key competencies) to do the sort of things Rose and Novas describe? What science do you need to know? What sort of NOS might help and how? Who helps students bring the pieces together (social sciences not just science)? Assuming we can imagine some answers, how can we even make it possible for these sorts of changes to take place? What might happen if we don’t change? (Rose and Novas are not writing science fiction – these things they describe are happening already.) It would be good to share ideas because these won’t be easy questions to answer.

Shifting schooling , , , , , , ,

Talking with families about learning

September 17th, 2009

Some researchers at NZCER are currently working with a group of school leaders to try and answer this question: “How can whole school communities (staff, students, families) be provided with opportunities to engage with future focused ideas about education?” This project began with a workshop where school leaders and researchers talked about what things about school might need to change, and which school practices might be effective levers in bringing about this change.  Each school is now thinking about which particular lever they want to focus on over the next year or so.

Two schools have already decided on using three-way interviews as a lever for getting the whole school community to think about future focused ideas in education. One school has not done three-way interviews before. The principal decided to try this lever having listened to others at the workshop talking about the potential they thought these interviews had.  She is hoping that at these interviews teachers will use assessment data to talk to parents about their children’s progress in literacy and numeracy and then the (primary aged) students will show their parents examples of work that they think are evidence of what the teacher is talking about. The hope is that this will help the children become more involved in their own learning and at the same time make the “teacher speak” more accessible to parents in this diverse community.

We would really like to hear from anyone who has used three-way interviews in this way or who may have ideas about what leads to successful three-way conferences. What support do teachers/ children / parents need to make these interviews successful? Remember the focus of this project is on how to engage whole school communities in future focused ideas about education. All input welcome!

Community engagement , ,

Key competencies: Is anything different?

June 15th, 2009

There is something niggling at me about the key competencies – but I can’t quite put my finger on what it is. This somewhat rambling blog is an attempt to clarify my thinking. Any comments/ insights will be most welcome – I do hope my confusion isn’t infectious though!

When the revised New Zealand Curriculum first appeared I was really enthusiastic about the key competencies and excited by what I saw as their potential to transform education in NZ but now I’m not so sure about how powerful they really are.  The key competencies are described in the NZC as “capabilities for living and life long learning”. As such they are closely connected to the vision, “Confident, connected, actively involved life long learners.”  This presumably means that the development of these competencies should be the goal of education and if they are the goal then may be we need to think  differently about what we are doing in schools.

It seems to me, that we don’t really have a way yet to think and talk about the key competencies without treating them either like another content area, or a set of generic skills. What is the relationship of the key competencies to the learning areas? How are they really different from the Essential Skills of the previous curriculum? We talk about competencies being broader than skills – that they embrace attitudes, knowledge, skills and dispositions – but do we think about them differently from how we think about skills? We talk about including key competencies in planning, and incorporating  them into or weaving them through learning areas as though they were objects. It seems to me that regardless of the intent of including these competencies in the curriculum, the result is that the only way we can make sense of them is to make them fit with how we currently think about what we do in schools. Perhaps the key competencies are taking the shape of the container they have been poured into (and now I am treating them as things!)

If we were to ask ourselves how each learning area contributes to the development of confident, connected life long learners  and focus our teaching on that wouldn’t we be developing key competencies (even if they didn’t appear in the curriculum document)? After all, the essence statements (in the curriculum document) for each learning area seem to embrace the competencies people need to function effectively in society. Does it matter then whether they are developed through science, or social studies or art? My gut response is that yes a broad curriculum is important for all students, and that each learning area will contribute in a particular way to the development of the key competencies, but is that more important than learning something in depth? Does breadth or depth better serve the purpose of developing the capacity of an individual to participate fully in society? If the purpose of public education is to develop these competencies in all students, might it be that different students would develop these competencies through different pathways? Are there really core subjects (learning areas) that all students need to be exposed to?

I do think that all the different learning areas have the potential to develop the key competencies as long as we are teaching them for that purpose. What I’m not so sure about is how comfortable I really am with the idea of a learning area simply being the vehicle for developing key competencies! I seem to carry within me some deeply held, but barely conscious beliefs about what’s valuable in education. These beliefs are sometimes in conflict with what I know at another level to be important ideas. I know these beliefs are there because they sometimes surface when I think about new ideas about education in relation to my own children!  I doubt that I am alone in carrying these deeply held, yet seldom accessible beliefs. Perhaps it is these belief systems that are the real barrier to educational change as we subconsciously subvert new innovations to  fit with what we already know.

If this is so, perhaps the real function of the key competencies is to remind us of what should be important in our teaching. I think the challenge  is how we use them to help us think differently, rather than squeeze them into something that is familiar to us.

Shifting schooling , , , ,

Curriculum conferences

May 13th, 2009

At NZCER’s recent series of curriculum conferences there was a lot of interesting discussion relating to the implementation of New Zealand’s revised curriculum.  You can find out more about the conferences at http://www.nzcer.org.nz/default.php?cPath=21_394_396&page=1&sort=1d

I thought it might be useful to post some of the questions we discussed at the conferences here as an invitation for anyone interested to continue the conversation. Some of the questions posed were:

  • How do we balance a national and a school-based curriculum? What are the universal things that all schools need to be doing? (Are there any?) What are the areas where schools have the freedom to choose what they teach and how?
  • What does achievement look like and who decides?
  • What role do structures play in initiating, processing and sustaining change?
  • How do we support and grow leaders of learning at all levels – principals, teachers, students, BOT?
  • How do you encourage staff to be brave and visionary?
  • What are the barriers/ enablers for deep change?
  • What are the most effective levers for changing the school culture?

What’s “on top” for you? What’s puzzling you about how we can move towards a more future focused view of learning and education, whilst still keep everything up and going on a day to day basis for today’s students ?  What are the questions you think we all need to be asking? What are the most important things to think about?

Shifting schooling , ,

How do we decide what to teach?

April 16th, 2009

Over the last couple of days I have been at the primary science conferences in Dunedin and Christchurch. I have been struck by the enthusiasm of primary teachers who have given up part of their holiday to learn more about teaching science which if we are honest has a fairly low (though perhaps increasing) profile in primary schools at the moment. I have also gleaned some new ideas about how we might get kids more enthusiastic about science and how to get them wondering and talking about their world.  However what seems to be largely missing from the sessions I have attended (including my own!) is discussion about what primary students need to know in science if they are to be able to “participate as critical, informed and responsible citizens in a society in which science plays a significant role” which is the rationale for teaching science in the curriculum document.

When teachers  (or resource developers for that matter) plan a unit of work do we pause and think why do I think students need to learn this? What is important about this? How is it fitting into the bigger picture? Or do we plan something that seems interesting and then afterwards try and fit it to the curriculum? It strikes me that if we are doing the latter, then adding “key competencies”, Nature of Science or anything else isn’t really doing anything different..or am I missing something here? How would a science curriculum that was designed to produce “confident, connected, actively involved life long learners” be different from a traditional school science curriculum? What content would be in it?

I recently asked a specialist physics teacher what she thought the basic physics ideas were that primary students needed to gain an understanding of. If my memory serves me correctly she said something about conservation of energy, something about conservation of matter and an appreciation of the concept of force. Do you agree? What other things in science do primary students need to know a little bit about? What would teachers need to know to be able to teach these ideas effectively? Looking forward to hearing some ideas.

Shifting schooling , , , ,

Technology and what?

March 18th, 2009

Yesterday I was reading “Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century” by Kuhlthau, Maniotes and Caspari. They reckon the challenge for the 21st school is to “educate children for living and working in an information-rich technological environment”.  This made me start thinking again about the role of technology in 21st Century education.

Although, I agree advances in technology have changed what we can do and know, I’m still convinced this alone is not a good enough definition of what 21st Century education is all about but I’m having problems identifying what I think is missing. I think it has something to do with diversity and ideas of equity. We are constantly told NZ is becoming a more diverse society but what does this actually mean? As international travel becomes easier, NZ is less isolated physically from the rest of the world and people from all over the world are making NZ their home. Information technology also allows us to connect with people from all over the world so we are not restricted to interacting just with those in our immediate physical communities. ..(so perhaps it is all about technology!) Contact with people who are different from us doesn’t guarantee we celebrate or even recognise diversity though. I think perhaps an acceptance that there are many different (and valid) ways of doing things and making meaning of the world, is an important aspect of  21st Century education…but then if that is the case who decides what should be in the school curriculum? Whose knowledge or world view is included, whose is left out? How do we (and who is “we”) decide what is powerful knowledge?

All this brought me to wondering about whether 21st Century teachers need not only a certain awareness of their own meaning making systems in order to be able to interact respectfully and at more than just a surface level with others but also an awareness of how our current education system has developed, what its original purpose was and what the society was like it was designed to serve.

So…I think I’m arguing that C21st teachers need knowledge about the system they work within (and the assumptions that underpin it) and also about how they operate as individuals…as well as subject knowledge, pedagogical knowledge etc etc. .. and perhaps that is why I’m no longer a classroom teacher!

Teachers' work , , , , ,

Stuff and process

March 9th, 2009

Ok, so now I’m buzzing with Ally’s thoughts and Michael and Layla’s thoughts and I’m pondering this connection between 21C learning and technology. Into the mix let’s pour Jane’s thoughts about knowledge and Artichoke’s thinking about core curriculum and what it all means.

Ok, so there’s the STUFF you learn at school—that’s the facts/content. And there’s the PROCESS of the way you learn—that’s the pedagogy, etc.  If we make that separation, then technology is sometimes a STUFF (because it’s a skill base—my daughter “takes” technology) and sometimes a PROCESS (because it’s a method of learning—my son sometimes does maths on the computer).

But now I want to take Ally’s last entry really seriously and think that maybe the thing technology can do for us is help us think differently. That’s what Michael and Layla are pointing out too. And one of the ways I think we need to think really differently is to no longer separate the STUFF from the PROCESS. And maybe technology, because it goes in both of those directions, is quite a useful way to get us to think differently.

This means that it is most helpful to us when we’re not thinking of it as either a stuff or a process but we’re thinking about it for what it can enable—the connection that Layla talks about, the new thinking Ally ponders. If we could use technology—because it’s so new and flashy—to learn that stuff and process are not on different scales but could be the same, we could take that learning into other spaces. We could learn that putting kids in groups to think through something isn’t a PROCESS for their learning but the a big piece of the actual learning itself. We could learn that climate change isn’t just a STUFF, a content for kids to learn about, but a process for thinking differently about the world. If we can reconcile this difficulty about technology, maybe we could approach other key competencies differently and begin ultimately to have a different sense about Shakespeare’s place in the curriculum.

But what about Michael’s worry about the Faustian bargain? I wonder about this all the time. I used to teach in a masters degree programme for practicing teachers called Initiatives in Educational Transformation (fantastic programme, by the way—New Zealand needs something like this). We taught a course about education and technology, and we found that there were really two kinds of relationships our teachers had to technology: they loved it (uncritically) or they feared it (uncritically). It was so hard to have conversations about the Faustian bargains, about how each step forward is its own kind of loss.  I wonder if we need to have some of these conversations not just about technological changes but also about the changes to the 21C idea of education in the first place. Have we paid attention enough to our mourning of the old ways? I’m not sure. It’s all part of the same jumble for me, the same key question:
How does thinking shift the way technological change shifts, the way my growing kids shift, the way the our planet is shifting? How can we support these shifts? Maybe if we collect stories of shifting thinking, we can figure out more about how it happens?

Teachers' work , , , , ,