digital divide

Digital (insert word here!)

Posted on by

Today started with an interesting conversation with an amazing teacher friend of mine. Someone who’s extremely experienced and delivers powerful, meaningful learning opportunities. She ranted, ‘If I hear another ‘digital something’ my head will explode!’ I laughed and it made me think of how many digital somethings I experience in my day-to-day meanderings. Let me start by sharing just some of the current list encountered almost daily:
two worlds: digital device and notebook

  • Digital Fluency
  • Digital Technologies
  • Digital Generation
  • Digital Communication
  • Digital Citizenship
  • Digital Literacy
  • Digital Devices
  • (The) Digital Age
  • Digital Enablement
  • Digital Readiness

I really could go on. Each has a different meaning; each has importance, with some overlapping one another and many being misconstrued or misunderstood. It is important you understand that my teacher friend and I are not anti-digital anything. I, like her, highly value digital technology. It gives me the power to completely control my learning. I understand ubiquity on a level I could never have dreamed of just a decade ago. It enables me, empowers me, and supports me in almost everything I do. It’s specifically the word ‘digital’ that my colleague has begun to take issue with! It feels like it’s fallen foul of the buzzword trap that surrounds so many professions. Once a term becomes a buzzword it can lose purpose. It becomes something that’s thrown around because it sounds intelligent, cool, or current, rather than something that has meaning.

Digital Citizenship

Let’s take the subject and teaching around Citizenship as an example. Is it any different from Digital Citizenship?

“Is this digital citizenship or just plain citizenship? Building strong 21st Century citizens is of paramount importance whether we are living our lives offline or on, and we need to avoid using old-fashioned compartmentalised instruction in a connected world.” (Weston 2013)

As Marti Weston points out, we live in a connected world. Even our New Zealand Curriculum makes direct reference to this being key to the teaching and learning of our students as we strive to create ‘confident, connected, actively involved lifelong learners.’ In an ever-connected world, in which many of today’s learners do not demarcate their lives into online and offline, we need to teach effective citizenship to their context, not ours. This includes the digital!

Digital Generation: native or at home?

teddies with digital device and penThen there are Digital Natives. Native as a noun is defined as ‘a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.’ Today’s generation of learners wasn’t born online. It’s simply something they’ve never known a world without. I often refer to the concept of working memory and formation of early memories in relation to digital technologies. ‘Few adults can remember anything that happened to them before the age of three. Now, a new study has documented that it’s about age seven when our earliest memories begin to fade, a phenomenon known as childhood amnesia’ (Wood 2015). So, if we suggest that most adults remember very little prior to seven years old it could be argued that today’s 18-year-olds have no working memory of a world without the following:

  • Skype
  • Smart Phones
  • The App Store
  • The iPhone
  • Facebook
  • X-Box/Playstation
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Amazon

This list is non-exhaustive and, depending on their recall and upbringing, they may not remember the launch of things like Spotify or on-demand viewing services. Can you imagine what today’s primary aged student doesn’t know a world without?! And of course, I’ve missed the one incredibly obvious element that anyone under the age of 30 will have no recollection of not existing, the World Wide Web. For over a quarter of a century we’ve watched a generation grow and develop, surrounded by an ever-expanding digital universe. So, of course they’re home in a digital world; of course they’re digitally competent and able; it’s all they’ve ever known!

Digital Communication

This one might polarise some of you. There is a distinct difference between electronic communication and face-to-face communication. Of that there is absolutely no doubt. The ability to read someone’s expression and body language, hear the pitch and intonation in their voice, and make a connection just cannot be replicated without being face to face. But, I believe you can get pretty close. Approximately two years ago I started as a Digital Virtual Mentor (DVM) and I’ve been genuinely humbled to develop some fantastic relationships with people I’ve never met in person. I’m not suggesting we need to change the way we teach learners to interact, merely that we need to acknowledge a digital platform as one context they might experience.

Take letter writing as another example. Now we have email (even that’s been around in some form or another for nearly five decades). How often have you heard a teacher complain of students not understanding etiquette in letters or using inappropriate language/acronyms in their communication? If we don’t teach our students certain levels of understanding within their context, how can we possibly chastise or judge them for not meeting our expectation? While working with learners and exploring communication, I came up with a simple graphic to show the level of formality within different types of communication.

formal and informal commsAlthough the graphic was clearly focused on online and digital device-based communication, I’m hoping it illustrates the point that when teaching strategies to communicate effectively, many of the lessons and etiquettes are applicable across both the real and digital worlds. I suppose we return to the William Zinsser (1998) quote, ‘Never say anything in writing that you wouldn’t comfortably say in conversation. Be yourself when you write. If you’re not a person who says ‘indeed’ or ‘moreover,’ or who calls someone an individual (‘he’s a fine individual’), please don’t write it’ (p. 27). It’s simply now understanding what and where ‘writing something’ is — it is most certainly not limited to pen and paper.

I believe it is fair to say that the word digital has evolved and changed quite significantly from its root word ‘digitus’ that became ‘digitalis’ meaning finger or toe! I suppose it could be argued that much of our digital technology today requires the use of a finger (or toe) to operate it, but even that has changed rapidly. Voice control and input, the ability to unlock your cell phone with your face, calling ‘Hey Siri’ from across the room and asking for a timer to be set, everything has moved on. Each learner of today is entering the world without an understanding of the digital technology prior to their existence. Adverts are a frustration and inconvenience to the Netflix generation. Taking longer than 10 minutes to respond is considered rude by the citizens of Snapchat.

So much of what we do involves digital that, at times, the non-digital feels almost abnormal. We don’t have a non-digital technologies curriculum learning area, it’s simply technology. There is no analogue generation (although googling that brings up all sorts of interesting reading), so why must we insist on having a digital one? If digital has become the norm, isn’t it time we stopped trying to demarcate the two worlds and understand that the current generation simply see them as one? If not, we’re at risk of teaching today’s learners through yesterday’s eyes.

 

References

Weston, M. (2013) Is It Digital Citizenship or Just Plain Citizenship? Retrieved on May 14, 2018, from https://mediatechparenting.net/2013/10/16/is-it-digital-citizenship-or-just-plain-citizenship/

Wood, J. (2015). What’s Your Earliest Memory? Psych Central. Retrieved on May 14, 2018, from https://psychcentral.com/news/2014/01/26/whats-your-earliest-memory/64982.ht

Zinsser, W. (1998). On Writing Well (6th ed.). New York, NY. Harper Perennial.

Image credits:

read more
Posted in
ratings

What kind of feedback do you give? Constructive or destructive?

Posted on by

Providing someone with feedback is valuable. In our roles as educators, whether facilitator, leader, teacher, or a combination of all, we leave ourselves open to opinion. From time to time this feedback is shared constructively, points are collaboratively established to be worked through and targets are set. The outcome? Positive change. And then there are other times when feedback or criticism is destructive.

criticism“The difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism is the way in which comments are delivered. Although both forms are challenging your ideas, character, or ability, when someone is giving destructive criticism it can hurt your pride and have negative effects on your self-esteem and confidence. Destructive criticism is often just thoughtlessness by another person, but it can also be deliberately malicious and hurtful. Destructive criticism can, in some cases, lead to anger and/or aggression.” (Dealing With Criticism)

For those of you who have been on the receiving end of destructive criticism, I truly empathise. We stand in front of our peers or learners, delivering, teaching, or supporting with passion. From personal experience, I have been astounded by how hard some comments have hit me. It hurts! It can be completely unexpected and feels almost impossible to prepare for.

What troubles me most is the long-term damage that destructive criticism can cause. Whether motivated by a sense of helping, or, in rare cases, actively designed to cause turmoil, in the education sector it simply isn’t good enough. Our roles and much of our professional development relies heavily on the feedback of peers. Education remains an intriguing mystery at times as I watch amazing middle leaders deliver well-constructed feedback for their students, personalising comments, and finding deeper meaning, while the same is not done for their peers.

How could you frame feedback?

In 2004, Emily Heaphy and Marcial Losada conducted a study of the nature and ratio of effective feedback. Although their data has now been widely reviewed and challenged on a statistical level (not on a wider interpretation of impact level), the basic premise of their findings is well worth understanding. They found, “The average ratio for the highest-performing teams was 5.6 (that is, nearly six positive comments for every negative one).” (Zenger and Folkman 2013). Taking the meaning into account over the data as a fact, this leads us to believe that we perform better when the ratio of positive comments is much greater than negative. This in itself is not a revelation. A happy team who feel supported and trust their leadership will perform more effectively and cohesively than a team who feels the opposite — it’s human nature. However, seeing this ratio made me reflect on the feedback I had given to a peer when reading through their sabbatical report recently.

example of criticism

In no way am I suggesting my feedback here is perfect — far from it! Prior to this paragraph was a list of wider thinking questions that were designed to start deeper conversations, but upon rereading, I realised quickly that they could be seen as highly critical. After some rephrasing, but without losing the direction and with the addition of positivity to balance the challenge, I sent the feedback. It was well received and acted upon. I think the key here was to understand what it might feel like to be on the end of the email before pressing the send button. This is not always easy, but brings us back to the old proverb, ‘treat others as you would wish to be treated.’ It’s not perfect, but I don’t know anyone who would want to be on the end of destructive criticism!

When should you deliver feedback?

So, what if you’ve carefully phrased the criticism, balanced positive and negative elements, but made sure the meaning and direction has been maintained. When do you send it? Think carefully here. Have you ever received a challenging email late at night or over the weekend? It could be argued that we need a level of self-control and don’t need to check emails or messages in our personal time, but digital technology has changed things and we live in a predominantly ever-connected world. Switching off and demarcating non-message/email time is a whole different conversation. In this instance, imagine receiving something constructive over the weekend. It could go either way, right? Gently nagging at you throughout the weekend and distracting from time with whānau and friends. Or, it could be well received and not worry you until Monday morning. But dare we assume? I think, perhaps, the biggest question to ask here is: can it wait until the morning or Monday? If the answer is no, shouldn’t it to lead to asking, how the best way to share might be?

How should you deliver feedback?

To be effective, I believe you have to know the person on a personal level so that you know how they respond to different modes of communication and which they prefer. It’s important to know that one of your colleagues likes bad news or challenges to be shared face to face, whereas another is happy to receive it via Snapchat. For some, being able to hear someone’s tone on the telephone or read their expression and body language in person (or via video call with cameras on) is important. For others, being face to face with a colleague who is sharing criticism may be intimidating and they may feel uncomfortable outside of text-based communication. Neither is right or wrong, they are simply preferences. If we don’t ascertain what our colleague’s preference is, we run the risk of getting it wrong and potentially affecting them on a personal level.

How do we deal with criticism?

depressionIt’s not fair to assume that our reaction to every piece of criticism received will be the same. It is dependent on who the sender is, how it’s worded, and what the positive/negative ratio is.

“The key thing to remember is that whatever the circumstance is, don´t respond in anger as this will cause a scene and create bad feelings – and possibly a bad image of you.” (Dealing With Criticism).

Of course, there are generic things you can do to calm and deal with situations effectively, some of which can be applied to multiple situations:

Talk to someone

It is worth remembering that teaching and education rely heavily on collaboration and cooperation. Find someone you trust and share openly with them. It’s about finding perspective and understanding that an immediate reaction could be clouded by heightened emotion- we’re human!

Don’t press send

Write the email if you need to. Draft in a document, record it as a voice memo, do whatever you feel you need to do to get it out of your system, but do not press send. Everyone needs an outlet.

Focus on the positives

It can be hard to find the positives in a pile of negatives, but if you look hard, they’re often there. Combined with possibly talking with someone for a fresh set of eyes, hunt through for anything that resembles a comment that could be a compliment. If one simply cannot be found, stop reading. Put it down. Return to step one.

Respond (at an appropriate time)

The key here is appropriate. A response doesn’t mean a defence. It may be as simple as acknowledging the criticism and knowing when to cease the conversation. If the criticism is truly unjust and undeserved, mediation may be needed. Find an alternative perspective and have a comparison. Otherwise, let it go; the damage done from holding on to something you cannot change far outweighs anything else.

Find a different cup

A close colleague of mine, who recently supported me through my own challenge, shared how strange it was that we so often end up focusing on the negative. On a page of beautifully balanced constructive criticism, our eyes immediately search for the thing we know will upset us the most! It made me wonder how often we bank the comments that make us feel good. How do we keep the cup full in the background, so we know it’s there to drink from when we need it? There is nothing arrogant about storing positivity to improve a sense of self. After all, we have a first-aid kit in the house, why not have one for the mind?

In conclusion…

In closing, something I think we all need to remember (including me as I write this) is that we are our own harshest critics. Whether that stems from the words of others or a deeply reflective sense of self, it’s about what we do with the thinking and words we receive. Do we let them stoke the flames of a raging fire of insecurity? Or, are we able to let them pass by us like a cool breeze? The internationally renowned singer Adele once said, “I have insecurities of course, but I don’t hang out with anyone who points them out.”

 

References
(n.d.). Dealing with Criticism | SkillsYouNeed. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from https://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/dealing-with-criticism.html
Zenger, J and Folkman, J.
(2013, March 15). The Ideal Praise-to-Criticism Ratio — Harvard Business Review. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from https://hbr.org/2013/03/the-ideal-praise-to-criticism

Image credits
Criticism, Write a Review, Review from Pixabay CC0
Depression, Voices, Self Criticism from Pixabay  CC0

read more
Posted in
digitally fluency

Digital Fluency, Literacy or Technology: what’s the difference?

Posted on by

Digital fluency remains on the lips of many educators and leaders around the country at the moment. TKI suggests ‘A digitally fluent person can decide when to use specific digital technologies to achieve their desired outcome. They can articulate why the tools they are using will provide their desired outcome.’ (TKI) But isn’t it a little more than that? I would argue that a digitally fluent person also understands who the learning audience is and, as a result, how to create the most impact. Beyond that, it’s an understanding of where to publish to reach an audience.

“Digital tools make it easier than ever for our student creators to share their work with the world beyond the classroom. When I share how to use my favourite tools, I always come back to the why and the who. Why are we asking students to create a video, design a webpage, record a tutorial? And who is going to see their work?” (Burns 2015)

It all gets a little confusing as the original defining parameters and elements grow. If we include everything suggested, it could be something like:

‘A digitally fluent person is someone who understands when to use specific digital technologies and justify their choices by explaining why they have chosen them. They must explore who the learning is for, where an effective place to publish is, and how digital technology can be leveraged to support this.’For those using a text reader Click here

So, are we there? What about the interaction and understanding of models like Dr. Ruben Puentedura’s SAMR model? I suppose it could be argued that in incorporating SAMR into thinking, you show a clear understanding of both why and who digital technology can support.

Isolation or interaction?

ladder metaphorMuch of the challenge remains around how we view the terminology we use. Looking specifically at the terms technology, literacy, and fluency, we could view them as a ladder. For many years the SAMR model presented as a ladder has been a successful metaphor and model used in schools. Teachers understand that reaching Redefinition will transform student learning. If we apply this to technology, literacy, and fluency, we start with technology, we step into an understanding of literacy, and finally, we reach fluency. Like any ladder analogy, we accept that no one is a superhero, and no one is able to fly straight to the top. However, what about when you finally make it to the top? If technology changes, are you still at the top or do you have to start climbing again?

ladder metaphor doesn't workLooking at the three terms with an interdependent lens, they may perhaps look something like the graphic (left). I believe they interweave, interlink, and must not be viewed without knowledge and understanding of the others. In much the same way as all must be experienced to reach the top of a ladder, the difference here is that we understand things from a cyclical perspective. ‘Digital technologies’ remains the what. It’s the thing we can point at and touch. In order to use it successfully, we need to understand how it works and how they could be implemented in teaching and learning. We need to be literate. For true success, though, we must be discerning. The splatter gun of ideas and short-lived experimentation must be limited to a phase and cannot become a habit. Therefore, we must know why we use the tools we do and never lose sight of the impact we desire it to have. We aim to be fluent. Whether you agree or disagree, I hope the clearest element here is that we cannot see the device, its function and its ability to transform learning in isolation. We need to understand all to truly leverage the power technology can bring.

What does a digitally fluent teacher look like?

If I use my graphic above to illustrate my thought process behind my answer to this, it’s as follows. I know what technology is out there and that my students have access to. I have a clear understanding of how to use it and apply it to my teaching and learning practice. And finally, I understand and can justify why I feel it will improve my student learning and outcomes. Right? Maybe…
how, why, what cycleThe challenge we face is that technology is ever changing. Digital Fluency isn’t like your driver’s license. With that, you learn to drive, you sit the test, you are awarded your license, and that’s it. As long as you don’t commit infringements and stay within the guidelines of the Road Code, there’s no need to re-sit your test on a regular basis or reapply for your license. Why? Because the car hasn’t really changed in its functionality or primary operability in the last 50 years. Please don’t misunderstand me, technological advancement and changes to propulsion efficiency and method, comforts, accessories, and safety have been tremendous. But the actual process of driving hasn’t changed. Seat belt on, engine on, into gear (with or without a clutch), mirror, signal, check, manoeuvre.

On the other hand, look at mobile digital technology. The cell phone has evolved hugely. Those who could confidently tap the number into the portable cellular phones of the 1980s have had to learn all the functions of the modern smartphone. Even the name has changed. Whereas an early cell phone could simply make calls, now their feature lists are enormous. A cell phone now, put simply, does more.

Now, you could be forgiven for thinking that the simple laptop hasn’t changed much. mobile development But, stop for a moment and just think about what you can do with a $300 Chromebook that your Satellite Pro of the 1990s couldn’t. It video calls, it hooks up to the internet (without a dongle or cable!), it has no need to read CDs or DVDs. Its hard disk drive (HDD) is capable of storing endless multimedia that will wirelessly stream to no end of other devices and can be updated from even more. Unlike the phone, a modern laptop may still share physical appearance features with its ancestors, in much the same way as I have my family’s rather large nose, but the way they operate, and their user interfaces are extremely different.

Coming back to the original point of achieving Digital Fluency, we need to continue to reflect on the ever-changing devices within the technological world, their functionality, and work out whether they will add genuine value and enrichment to the lives and learning of our students. A digitally fluent teacher is simply one who understands what resources are available to them, how they operate and why they might use them. They are able to adapt, learn, and evolve in order to keep their what and how current, and ensuring their why meets the needs of their students. And so, I touch very lightly on the new Digital Technology and Hangarau Matihiko learning areas of the New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. If, in my opinion, remaining fluent requires us to learn and adapt to the changing face of digital technology, why not learn alongside our learners? Why not explore wider concepts and computational thinking next to our five-year-olds? Or perhaps APIs and design principals with our high schoolers?

The bigger picture

Through digital enablement, the act of preparing and enabling students through the use of digital devices to function in a more digitally motivated age, we have the opportunity to blend the old with the new.

Many of our strongly held values and the Key Competencies haven’t changed, but our context has. We need to incorporate the values and behaviours that have guided our students successfully for many years with the new skills associated with a truly global, digital citizen. Our learners will continue to need support in developing resilience, empathy, kindness, respect, and determination. But what do these elements look like in the digital world?

As access to technology as part of learning becomes an expectation of many students across New Zealand, the behaviours and guidance our students need to navigate the unknown world they’re heading for are needed more now than ever. Alongside teaching our junior primary learners why they need to keep their hands to themselves in the playground, we need to be teaching them the importance of (metaphorically) keeping them to themselves online, not lashing out in anger. As we model clear communication and language to share our learning journeys, we must ask what the same communication might look like in an email or online forum. How can we teach these in the real world without modelling and teaching them in the digital world — the one they are potentially going to spend even more time in than us?

In the lives of today’s learners, digital is the norm. If we’re not teaching the digital generation of learners we are presented with, then just who are we teaching?

Comments, please!
I would love to know your thoughts on this. Add your comments below.

Suggested reading:

 

References
(n.d.). Digital fluency / Teaching / enabling e-Learning – enabling eLearning. Retrieved July 4, 2018, from http://elearning.tki.org.nz/Teaching/Digital-fluency
(2016, November 15). The Value of an Authentic Audience | Edutopia. Retrieved July 4, 2018, from https://www.edutopia.org/article/value-of-authentic-audience-monica-burns

Image credits
Photo of girls using technology by Brooke Cagle on Unsplash (Copyright free)
Ladder by anarate on Pixabay under CC0
1980s cell phone by Redrum0486 on Wikimedia under CC BY-SA 3.0
1990s cell phones by Marus on Wikimedia in the Public Domain
Early smartphone by Oldmobil on Wikipedia under CC BY-SA 3.0
The iOS family pile by Blake Patterson on Wikimedia  under CC 2.0
SAMR by Leflerd on Wikimedia under CC BY-SA 4.0

 

 

read more
Posted in
stand out

What’s your point of difference?

Posted on by

stand out

With Auckland’s ever-expanding population, marketing for roll growth is not something a large number of schools have as a priority at the moment. But, what of those schools with a declining roll? Or those that have a hanging legacy to try and cast aside? Getting students through the door and growing a school can, in some cases, be a real challenge. And it’s not just students, what about attracting high-quality teaching staff? Auckland is a prime example of an area that is crying out for teachers. The media is constantly full of articles sharing the stories of teachers who have left the metropolis for the regions. Whether it’s cost of living or simply trying to get onto the property ladder, some of New Zealand’s larger cities are losing teachers at an alarming rate.

As someone who visits a lot of schools, I often find myself wondering what each school’s point of difference is. With my ‘parent-of-a-child-who-is-just-about-to-start-school’ hat on, what is it that would make me send my son to your school? What I’m talking about is a school’s value proposition. In marketing terms, it is defined as ‘an innovation, service, or feature intended to make a company or product attractive to customers.’ In real-world terms, I’m asking to see not just what the school does very well, but also how it is different from other schools around it.

Now, please do not misunderstand me — I’m not looking to start a marketing war between schools with flying accusations of poaching one another’s cohorts. I’m simply wondering whether leaders who are responsible for enrolments and appointments have considered what it is that makes their school special. Of course, most of us value our teaching and learning environments. It’s what makes teaching in New Zealand such a pleasure, knowing that no two classrooms or schools are the same. We have the freedom to develop our own thinking, direction, and culture within our individual environments and at a wider school level. My question is: Has this been formatted into a ‘unique value proposition’?

“Also known as a unique selling proposition (USP), your UVP is a clear statement that describes the benefit of your offer, how you solve your customer’s needs and what distinguishes you from the competition. Your unique value proposition should appear prominently on your landing page and in every marketing campaign.” (Unbounce.com)

Whether it’s your extra-curricular options, your incredible inquiry model, and delivery plan, or sporting success, unfortunately, many prospective parents and employees start at the same place: Decile. With the upcoming system changes and transition to the MoE anonymous targeted funding initiative, or risk index, things are going to change. But, that is never going to extinguish any fires burning from previous negative associations and, until the new system is fully embedded, decile ratings (both past and present) will significantly influence people’s perceptions.

Do what you've always doneHaving recently visited a school with my parent hat firmly fixed on, I left with as many wonderings as when I stepped inside the doors. I couldn’t shake the question, ‘what else?’ Everything I was shown was fine. There were opportunities for growth and learning, steps being taken towards modern learning practice, and dabbling in the ILE world. All was absolutely… fine. So, why couldn’t I shake the question? It’s simple really. Being okay isn’t okay. Teaching and learning under the ‘That’s-What-We’ve-Always-Done’ mentality is just never going to be okay. I don’t for one second think this is the case in the school I visited. I wholeheartedly believe they had innovation and powerful opportunities for engagement and empowerment happening within the school; I just couldn’t see it. Their website touched on it, their inquiry model certainly talked about empowering learners and self-exploration, but as a visitor to the school and prospective parent, it wasn’t in front of me. No matter what question I asked or how subtly I pushed, the school’s uniqueness didn’t shine through. And it made me wonder… Is this what visitors to the school see? Is that okay? To a parent outside of education, what was shown was similar in some ways to the education they received. Surely that wasn’t the school’s unique value proposition?

Do more of what makes you awesomeIn the busy life of schools, the must-dos of governance and Ministry requirements are, at the very least, time-consuming. Little time is left for the ‘should dos’, and they are dealt with the best they can be. For example, we should be promoting teaching as inquiry and establishing strong relationships both within and across schools. We should be strengthening our repertoire of skills and letting the ‘pockets of promise’ shine through. But what about the ‘could dos?’ It’s here that schools have an opportunity to push beyond the norm and define themselves as genuine institutions of modern learning. After the charter has been submitted and the data has been analysed, many leaders have little time to engage in purposeful conversations around pushing the boundaries of education. This is by no means a criticism; just the reality of the incredibly high pressured life of a leader in education. So often I’ve seen the pendulum swing away from future-focused education towards governance and accountability. And, it’s here where facilitators and consultants like myself have an opportunity to help make a significant change. Our role is not to show schools the way. We don’t have the map. But we do have the paper with which leaders can draw their own and decide on just what it is that makes them special.

On seeking the advice of a very experienced and highly-regarded, forward-thinking principal recently, he shared his insights on the direction he felt schools were headed. So many of his colleagues and fellow leaders were so preoccupied with governance, property, and finance (their must-dos), that their ‘should-dos’ received just a fraction of their time. It left nothing for the big questions. Where were they going? Where did they see their school in 5, 10, or even 20 years time? How were they providing learners with purposeful, agentic learning and focusing on the skills sought by businesses and future employers? Were they focusing on the key competencies and values within The New Zealand Curriculum and promoting communication, organisation, and collaboration (see here for a 2016 article via Linkedin)? The list of questions was endless and all were very much in the wider, strategic direction space. I, like many of his colleagues, simply had no answer.

There are many great thinkers and edutainers out there. They enthrall us with their vision of the future and incredibly simple explanations of the most complex concepts. But, just how often does it transfer into genuine change? So, I direct my final comments to leaders who are asking the questions but simply don’t have the capacity to find the answers. Find your map. Collaboratively, creatively, and with the support of colleagues both within and outside of your organisation. Sometimes that means someone like me has the honour of coming along with you on your collective journey, and sometimes it’s just a case of finding the time to prioritise your could-dos. Whatever you choose, whatever it is that makes your school shine, sing it from every rooftop and do it with pride.

Whāia te iti kahurangi ki te tūohu koe me he maunga teitei, Seek the treasure you value most dearly: if you bow your head, let it be to a lofty mountain.

 

References

Images

read more
Posted in
engage with the nzc

Are you engaging with the New Zealand Curriculum?

Posted on by

engage with the NZ Curriculum

Most great conversations start with a really purposeful question. A question that’s simple but not simplistic. A simple question posed in conversation recently was, ‘Are you engaging with the New Zealand Curriculum?’ Before you answer, think carefully about what that question actually means. In my humble opinion the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) is one of the finest documents created. It has guidance, it asks questions, it can define your view of education. In any purposeful conversation or debate, there is usually a catalyst. So, before I go any further, I’d like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Daniel Birch, Principal of Hobsonville Point Primary School, for being an incredible thought provoker in conversation today.

The New Zealand Curriculum is a 49-page document that should underpin the content and practice of every educator in every classroom in the country. But does it?

Most of us, myself included, focused initially on pages 16-33, studying the learning areas and objectives, planning carefully for good coverage and making sure that I was accountable. But that still leaves us 32 pages to explore. Taking out place-holder pages, covers, and glossaries, we are left with around 28 pages of information, advice, and guidance, and it’s these where tremendous value can be found. So, I return to my original question, are you engaging with the New Zealand Curriculum? Looking back at my own classroom practice, and allowing time for the question to genuinely percolate, no, not fully. You see, the document was never designed to simply be a reference point for teachers to choose what to teach. It’s an all-encompassing document that stresses the importance of teaching the whole child.

nzcWhen you look at the diagram, lifted straight from the document, it makes sense that about a third of the content is dedicated to Learning Areas. It could be argued that about a third of learning is assimilating knowledge in specific content areas. But what of the other two thirds?

Once again I return to the original question, are you engaging with the New Zealand Curriculum? All of it. With the pressure of National Standards and NCEA achievement targets, it stands to reason that there would be a logical slip towards knowledge in order to have something to summatively assess. Much of the brilliant research out there focuses on raising student achievement. As an example, John Hattie’s extremely highly regarded Visible Learning focuses on effect size and the influence on achievement. It’s a strong reminder that we are continuously surrounded by the language of achievement, value added and academic progress. But what of the main vision? What about the skills businesses value and are looking for? Don’t misunderstand my point, subject-specific knowledge very much has its place, but that place is just one piece of the complex puzzle that is teaching and learning. A wonderful colleague of mine mentioned recently that if we can get the values and key competencies right, the other things will sort themselves out. I think she has a point!

In recent years, the metaphorical pendulum has swung towards pedagogy and away from content. Most teachers and principals I engage with have a better understanding of research and how their students learn than ever before. Much of the challenge around maintaining this focus on powerful, meaningful learning opportunities lies with identifying our drivers. Why do we do what we do, not what we want as an outcome. Meeting a national standard or predetermined benchmark cannot and should not be a driver. It is an outcome. Put simply, achieving a standard is a result of good teaching practice with a balance of values, key competencies, and focus on learning areas.

Identifying Misconceptions

More recently, I was shared into a fantastic ‘What if’ style set of statements, post staff meeting in a large high decile school. The staff meeting had centred around inquiry and curriculum, however staff were given the opportunity to share statements at the end of the meeting to further discussion, challenge concepts, and share ideas moving forward. It was here that a statement was delivered by a teacher that reignited this post, displayed by a small pocket of teachers from within the school…

“What if the New Zealand Curriculum had been designed by educators and not politicians.”

Having not been present at the meeting, I am not fully aware of the conversations that took place and led to this statement being shared. However, I’m led to believe that the statement came as a result of discussion with a small group of teachers. I was left almost speechless. As someone who works alongside schools, my place is not to judge, it is to educate, facilitate, and provide opportunities to explore. It has never crossed my mind that there could be a pocket of people out there who believe the NZC was designed by politicians. In the design of the original NZC, the consultation process was long and extensive. Educators from across the sector were invited to share their thinking and shape the way we deliver education in this country.

The link between those engaging with only the subject matter and learning areas and those who believe the curriculum was constructed by people outside of education is immediately apparent. If you believe something has been constructed by someone who doesn’t understand your role, you simply won’t buy into it. It becomes learning that is done to you- the most ineffective of all professional learning.

Linking to Digital Technologies | Hangarau Matihiko

It has been a priority for many New Zealand teachers for several years and more recently has become a national priority via the Ministry. Much like the NZC, the current draft copy must not be interpreted as a set of learning intentions to be adhered to. It’s a broader, more holistic, approach to establishing digital fluency within today’s learners. It’s new, but it’s not really new. Many forward-thinking schools have continued to push the boundaries of education and digital possibilities for years. The development of the DT & HM curriculum is simply a step towards helping others be and do more. Like the NZC it incorporates a strong ‘why’ and detailed explanations around the value we need to place in developing wider skill sets to meet the needs of both future employers and our current learners. It is not prescriptive, nor is it a sequence of lessons or breakdown of modules to teach. Like every other learning area (both within and outside of the NZC), the intention is to use existing strengths within inquiry teaching and extend them using algorithmic and computational thinking.

However you view the curriculum, there are some things you simply cannot ignore. It was designed by educators for educators. The intention is to teach the whole child, not to teach the content areas. If you want to teach for success, there’s no better place than to start with the NZC and utilise it to its full extent.

 

Image Credits:

Engage image: Engage by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images
The New Zealand Curriculum

read more
Posted in