Holistic and Integral Education

Declaration of Educational Goals: ICTs

MCEETYA are seeking input on the new National Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians for the next decade. See previous post.

• maximising the use of the latest technologies in teacher professional learning (d)
• integrating key multidisciplinary perspectives into the curriculum which includes ICT (e)
• using new technology to minimize red tape and make information easily accessible to the public (g)

To some this appears odd given the focus in the preamble, the current Digital Education Revolution national agenda and the level of detail in the DER strategic planning documents.

Perhaps the draft declaration needs to include something about using ICTs to achieve each goal - and some/many of the 'commitment to actions' - or is that assumed? Can we assume anything if we are talking about the need for "quantum leaps" in effectiveness?

Should the document include something about using ICTs to

• enable personalised learning?
• create safe and developmentally appropriate spaces for blended learning, communities of inquiry and digital folios?
• facilitate assessment of, for and as learning?
• bridge formal and informal learning - including computer game and special interest 'affinity spaces'?

Or perhaps given the ongoing rapid rate of change in ICTs to 2020 we need to rethink our approach in this area?

How can we be ready for powerful mobile computing, complex virtual worlds, sophisticated games AI, highly interactive media, ubiquitous geo-tagging, and many more ... as they deliver new affordances in education? Particularly when they are likely to be delivered directly to most (but not all) learners? And particularly when learners won't necessarily 'see' either the new ICT or the new affordances?

How can curriculum, learning, teaching and assessment be much more responsive to this rapid change? How can we keep the focus on learning, teaching and assessment without being distracted by shiny gadgets with short lives? How can we reduce the professional learning burden on teachers?

What other questions should we be asking and which assumptions should we be questioning?

Perhaps this is where we need a 'commitment to action'.

.

Labels: 21stCentury, curriculum, ICT tools, literacies

posted by Roger Stack @ 8:04 AM 1 comments

Declaration of Educational Goals: Metaphors

MCEETYA are seeking input on the new National Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians for the next decade. See previous post.

The draft document calls for the development in Australia of "world-class curriculum and assessment". Although I understand the intent I question the metaphor and therefore the possible underlying assumptions.

While previous declarations have been about 'schooling' the current document moves to 'education'. This is a welcome and significant shift away from 19th century metaphors and thinking that were designed to support industrialisation.

But which school of thought does 'world-class' sit in? We need to be careful that 19th century metaphors are not being simply re-badged leaving unquestioned assumptions to drive thinking.

For example, when the document refers to the need for "quality teachers" it also talks about developing the right people to be effective instructors to deliver the best possible instruction! Aren't we committed to personalised learning for all young Australians?

The document says teachers should have "targeted professional development... to enhance teaching and learning." Shouldn't they be engaged with "personalised professional learning... to enhance learning, teaching and assessment" ?

Laying solid foundations is another metaphor that needs questioning... The notion of providing foundations for later learning appears frequently in the document. Combined with the need for essential literacy and numeracy (also frequently cited) and the need to meet national standards this has the potential to alienate many of the learners we are attempting to engage.

Some learners spend years - even decades - in dark educational foundations...

We understand the brain/mind and learning a little better now. Laying foundations, building learning structures, sequential processes and other 19th C metaphors are not always the most appropriate...

We also need to question our curriculum metaphors. The document talks about a "comprehensive curriculum that details the knowledge, skills and values to be achieved." Is this 'curriculum as content' where "specified work needs to be covered" ? Or are we talking about more dynamic curriculum frameworks that remains current in times of rapid change?

While the document has much to offer it still appears to be caught between the 19th and 21st centuries - neither in one nor the other...

But then so are we :-)

.

Labels: 21stCentury, conceptual frameworks, curriculum, engagement

posted by Roger Stack @ 7:44 AM 2 comments

Declaration of Educational Goals: Play

MCEETYA are seeking input on the new National Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians for the next decade. See previous post.

The draft document emphasizes the importance in times of rapid change and with current global challenges of having creative and curious learners who can think in new ways, embrace opportunity and innovate.

One powerful way to promote creativity and innovation is to create educational environments that allow learners the mental, emotional and physical space to safely play, explore possibilities and take risks - and not just for very young learners.

Play for learning does much to maintain engagement, promote well-being and create opportunities for transformation in understanding. Play can also bridge formal and informal learning and break down barriers to learning. The serious games initiative for example is one way education can use online games to enhance learning.

The importance of play for learning is a little hard to find in the current draft that validly highlights the need for skilling in essential literacy and numeracy, building foundational knowledge and skills in all learning areas, and achieving excellence.

As well as talking about how we as a community can achieve these educational goals "with support and hard work - from children and young people and their parents..." perhaps we also need to say something about playfulness, imagination and celebration.

All work and no play makes for a dull declaration of educational goals :-)

There may be other things we can do to promote creativity, imagination and innovation. Ken Robinson asked if schools kill creativity at TED two years ago and his message has been reverberating around the globe ever since.

Should there also be something in the declaration about students following their passion and developing personal interests and talents?

.

Labels: 21stCentury, curriculum

posted by Roger Stack @ 7:20 AM 1 comments

Declaration of Educational Goals: Foresight

MCEETYA are seeking input on the new National Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians for the next decade. See previous post.

• critical and cross-disciplinary thinking
• values of resilience and ingenuity
• thinking flexibly and creatively
• innovation and problem solving
• multi-disciplinary capabilities
• engaging with new subject disciplines

However this does not highlight enough the need for futures thinking, skills and tools. It is not enough to be able to cope with change and solve problems - although these are very necessary skills.

We need young Australians who can create their preferred futures, who have skills in problem prevention and social foresight, and who have the optimism for the future that comes with the empowerment these capabilities bring.

We need to be able to predict the consequences of our personal and collective actions rather than react to global challenges decades after they were caused - particularly with some of far-reaching applications of today's new bio/nano/gene technologies. We need young Australians who question underpinning assumptions and worldviews before they engage in a search for solutions.

Futures studies or social foresight has appeared regularly over the last few decades in educational discourse but is often overwhelmed by more immediate concerns and priorities. We need to think more creatively about how we can include the skills and tools of social foresight in education. Our successful future depends on it - locally and globally.

As far as the draft document goes perhaps an immediate improvement would be to include problem prevention with problem solving, foresight with resilience, and questioning assumptions and worldviews with critical thinking.

We certainly need "successful learners" who "have the capacity to make sense of their world and think about how things became the way they are" but perhaps we also need to add "and can create preferred futures".

See also World Futures Studies Federation and the WFSF Teaching Commons Resources

.

Labels: 21stCentury, curriculum, futures

posted by Roger Stack @ 7:05 AM 0 comments

Educational Goals for Young Australians

Labels: 21stCentury, curriculum

posted by Roger Stack @ 3:17 PM 0 comments

Transformative Journeys

Oxygen and Hydrogen combining to form water was the metaphor chosen by Minister for Education, David Bartlett MP to convey the transformative aspects of the government's new agenda for post-compulsory education in Tasmania.
He was referring to the integration of year 11/12 colleges and TAFE to form the Tasmanian Polytechnic which will open its doors to students from January 2009.

Transformation of learning and training to provide holistic education for all students was a frequently repeated theme in the 2 day conference the Minister was opening. The conference was skillfully organised to canvas the educational imperatives, to point to some new possibilities and to reflect the nature of the transformational journey required.

Presenters including Caldwell and Sidoti gave the consistent message that today's educational institutions will only fall further behind if they attempt to meet 21st Century needs within even the best 20th century learning institutions. What is required is educational transformation not just reform. They called for

• new educational thinking and curriculum
• new educational structures
• new educational cultures

Now this might sound like a difficult task for a state system - and an impossible one by January 2009 but we are not starting from scratch... nor are we asked to complete the transformation by that time...

We already know how the transformed system should begin. We have known many of the educational imperatives and some aspects of the solution for at least a decade. In fact some conference delegates had flash-backs to 2004 and even 2000 when much of the same data and educational directions were made clear at presentations opening the Tasmanian State of Learning and Learning Together reform agendas.

But we are not going round in circles... Our current level on the educational change spiral is about systemic structural change. Previous spirals have been about curriculum (eg PY10, ELs, Training Reform Agenda), community (eg partnerships), authentic learning (eg applied, enterprise and project-based)... We are now more informed, more experienced, and perhaps more adventurous... when it comes to educational change.

The current spiral is about personalised learning (student at the center, pathways).

To achieve this goal Caldwell believes we need to align our intellectual, social, financial and spiritual capital.

Can we integrate our current expertise in engaging pedagogy, meaningful curriculum and working partnerships in the post-compulsory sector to create new possibilities with new cultures?

When hydrogen and oxygen combine in a test tube you can hear a loud 'pop'... Plenty of pops were also heard in chat sessions held following the presentations!

But there were also the first tentative signs of water - new possibilities - new structures, new curriculum, new partnerships, new educational cultures...


Water image: CC Solkoll and ocean.flynn
Capital image: Adapted from an image by Caldwell

Labels: 21stCentury, curriculum, holistic, transformation

posted by Roger Stack @ 5:04 PM 1 comments

Doing IT Differently - D: New Curriculum

What will be different at HC in 2008?

D: New Curriculum

During 2004/5 a new Curriculum Framework was developed for years 11/12 and in 2006/7 courses were written and new initiatives were trialled based on this Framework. Parallel with this process Post Year 10 education is being restructured with an integration of Senior Secondary Colleges and TAFE to give a multi-campus Polytechnic, a multi-campus Academy and a Training Enterprise as part of the Tasmania Tomorrow strategy by 2009.

In 2008 we will implement Computing courses re-developed based on the new Framework as well as the new course Student Directed Inquiry. In our case Student Directed Inquiry (SDI) will be offered in the broad area of Interactive Media and will allow students to conduct transdisciplinary inquiry in areas of personal interest. The aim of the SDI course is to "promote learning skills and ways of thinking essential for the development of self-directed, self-managing, lifelong learners in the 21st century."

Teachers and students will work closely with a programmer with extensive experience in the games industry who visited the college during 2007. Although this course does not begin until February 2008 six students have already formed a production team and have had long planning meetings!

A key feature of our curriculum implementation in 2008 will be that learning will be personalised and will not be rigidly bound by syllabuses, timetables, assessment or classrooms. These structures will be interpreted as frameworks only - students and teachers will be able to determine the exact nature of their own learning, teaching and assessment.

The focus will be on student learning that creates:

• Insightful learners who can access, apply, transfer and create knowledge;
• Individuals who are self-directed and ethical;
• Citizens who are engaged, active and responsible in their community; and
• Forward thinkers who can apply their skills and understanding to successfully participate in work, society and future learning.

Previous - C: Social Learning Next - E: Assessment of, for and as Learning

Labels: curriculum, learning, teaching, transformation

posted by Roger Stack @ 9:36 AM 0 comments

Doing IT Differently...

THE TIME HAS COME... to KNOW a new education system... to DO new things in education... to BE different in education...

Heard it all before? Well yes... these things were said in 1998 with the 21st century looming... and the recognition that education needed to change.

After a decade of talking and projects and reforms - and learning - it now might be time for actual transformation to occur... or at least the next stage of our (my) transformation where we (I) actually KNOW how we (I) want ACT and BE in education.

How different? My sense of difference comes as I reflect on my personal and systemic journey of the last decade - and in particular the last 2 years - and then attempt to project myself into 2008/9.

Over the next few posts I intend to reflect on the key initiatives and understandings of the last two years that I think will shape my - and my students' and colleagues - experience of education in 2008 and beyond in our State system.

Gee - did I just write that - this should be interesting... :-)

Next - A: Team Teaching

Labels: 21stCentury, curriculum, engagement, transformation

posted by Roger Stack @ 10:48 AM 0 comments

Integrating Science and Soul in Education

"This is an auto-ethnographic study into the lived experience of a science teacher as she attempts to transform her science teaching practice and the practice of other science teachers over a period of 15 years. In exploring what it means to be a holistic educator she is faced with disorienting dilemmas which cause her to question underpinning assumptions, values and curriculum frameworks which inform traditional science teaching practice and culture. In trying to reconcile science and soul in the pedagogical space of a physics classroom her journey requires a deep investigation of self in various cultures – science culture, educational culture, modernist and postmodernist cultures."

Labels: conceptual frameworks, curriculum, holistic, integral, learning, spirituality, teaching, transdisciplinary, transformation

posted by Roger Stack @ 9:08 AM 0 comments

Designing Courses: Learning Areas and Capabilities

I've been playing with models that might clarify the process of designing courses in order to provide for all students under the new Post Year 10 Curriculum Framework for Tasmania. I've also been reading about the current call for a "back to basics" national curriculum and in particular thinking about Alan Reid's proposal's in Rethinking National Curriculum Collaboration - but within a State rather than national context. (School education is the constitutional responsibility of the States in Australia.)

Before the current PY10 Curriculum Framework was developed the structure of the curriculum was hard to conceptualise. In the late 80s and early 90s traditional subjects were loosely grouped into 'learning areas'; new programs to support literacy, numeracy and ICT literacy were developed; new courses emerged and some stayed; student support, health and well-being and career/pathway options evolved; key competencies/capabilities were identified...

However much of this sat outside traditional subjects/leaning areas - conceptually and often in implementation as well - or sometimes uneasily within syllabuses and timetables as attempts were made to "embed them".

Syllabus development most often occurred within subject/learning areas and tended to reinforce existing knowledge structures, ways of learning, teaching and assessment. New courses often failed to gain a foothold if they did not fall neatly into traditional ways of organising knowledge.

The new PY10 Curriculum Framework is based on agreed values and purposes arrived at during a long period of co-construction. We are currently looking at the structures and processes that might inform the provision of courses within the Framework. What range of courses will be available to choose from?

While we now have a State Curriculum Framework individual year 11/12 schools will be responsible for implementation to meet student needs in local contexts. Which courses will schools choose to offer their students? And how will individual classroom teachers interpret these courses?

A key question at the moment is what sits between the values and purposes and the capabilities/literacies? What are the contexts for learning? Can we move away from learning areas? Should we move away from learning areas? Following Reid's suggestion (in the above paper) can we develop courses where students learn for the capabilities through the learning areas - leaving the details of what learning to schools, teachers and students?

Or will existing ways organising knowledge/skills and their associated communities of practice work against providing opportunities to develop all the capabilities required for the 21st century? Will anything really change if traditional learning areas still dominate structures and processes for course/syllabus development.

And where do transdisciplinary approaches fit? How do we move beyond disciplines to engage in the kind of rigorous thinking that is needed to meet today's societal and planetary challenges? Can we construct valued learning experiences/courses that exist in the space between the disciplines and their well developed resources/support structures/dialogues?

Perhaps we need to use other lenses/conceptual frameworks to help us create courses/learning experiences that help students to make meaningful connections beyond subject borders and to "know what they don’t know". Can we generate meaningful content/contexts by asking the big questions? Is an 'integral' lens useful as a conceptual framework?

Perhaps course developers and classroom teachers (hopefully the same people) need to draw on a course development toolbox containing a variety of conceptual lenses... A learning ecology/connectivism framework such as the following by George Siemens that looks at "know where" as well as "know-how" and "know-what" might be one tool.

And how can we establish course developement models/principles that ensure the ongoing currency of courses in today's rapidly changing world?

Labels: 21stCentury, conceptual frameworks, curriculum, learning, literacies, transdisciplinary

posted by Roger Stack @ 12:58 PM 2 comments

Curriculum as Connectivism

I've been reading with interest George Siemen's blog and wiki on 'connectivism' talking about learning as network creation and how we might provide 'learning ecologies' to meet the needs of students. I'm finding these concepts very useful as we look at planning the implementation of the new Curriculum Framework. But before I launch into that I've been trying to place connectivism as a curriculum metaphor within an Integral AQAL Framework... particularly after reading his last post revisiting a discussion on subjectivity and objectivity.

I've looked at this before with some simplistic (perhaps too simplistic) mappings of other curriculum metaphors onto Ken Wilber's subjective/objective/individual/collective quadrants (270Kb). The different colours refer to waves from Spiral Dynamics... Blue as rule-self, orange as achiever-self, green as sensitive-self, yellow as integral-self... but I'm mostly interested in which quadrants these metaphors map into... at least in the way they have usually been implemented.

Curriculum as Content or Subjects: This metaphor portrays a traditional image of curriculum that stretches back to Pythagoras and Plato. This curriculum is one which receives contents from traditional academic disciplines and transmits them to the learner.
Intent: Curriculum development centres largely on subjects, contents, timetables and booklists. Needs may be defined in terms of preparation for university, commerce or general study.
Criticism: Does not account for cognitive development, creative expression, and personal growth. Nor for planned and un-planned activities that are a major part of students’ experiences at school.

Curriculum as Discrete Tasks and Concepts: The curriculum is seen as a set of tasks to be mastered and is derived from training programs in business, industry and the military.
Intent: ‘Apprenticeship’ with an adult to gain certain knowledge and skills.
Criticism: Does not prepare the learner for a changing world. Suited to technical training rather than conceptual understanding.


Curriculum as Experience: This image of curriculum, following John Dewey, emphasizes experience rather than sets of activities. Learners select a learning experience according to its significance in their life.
Intent: With this notion of curriculum, the learners have a key role in curriculum process. Experiences are created as learners reflect on the learning process.
Criticism: Students’ involvement in planning and selecting the learning experiences is very idealistic - they may not be able to decide which is of significance and which is not. How do you implement this in a large school?

Curriculum as Cultural Reproduction: The curriculum metaphor is concerned with the notion of transmission of cultural knowledge and values from one generation to another.
Intent: To prepare the youth for the culture of a certain community, state and country.
Criticism: Helps maintain the status quo by transmitting middle class culture rather than that of the oppressed. Does not help develop critical thinking.


Curriculum as “Currere”: The curriculum is the interpretation of the learner’s lived experiences – the learner comes to understand their past, how it drives the present and how it directs the future of their personal and professional life. Individuals come to a greater understanding of themselves, others, and the world about them.
Intent: Freedom from unwarranted convention, ideology and labelling. To mutually fashion new directions for oneself, others and the world.
Criticism: Self-understanding is a parental responsibility. The search for self-knowledge requires professional therapists.

Curriculum as Intended Learning Outcomes: This image sees the curriculum as a process of goal setting and drawing a pathways to those goals. The outcomes are expressed in general terms like “understanding the value of…”. Today most curriculum frameworks have incorporated this image.
Intent: The curriculum is explicit and defensible. Teachers and students can determine their learning activities according to their needs and locale.
Criticism: Draws attention away from unintended outcomes relating to school culture and the hidden curriculum.


So... how does one map curriculum as connectivism? At the moment my reading places it mainly in the ITS quadrant - grounded in an objective systemic worldview but taking into account issues of social constructivism (WE quadrant) with a span across blue/orange/green and possibly into yellow memes. A much broader span than the other metaphors...

Curriculum as Connectivism: This curriculum metaphor is related to networks and network topology. It takes a systems view of learners and sees learning as network creation.
Intent: To provide a ‘learning ecology’ that the student connects with as and when appropriate.
Criticism: Favours self-directed learners.

This is potentially a richer way of seeing curriculum provision and I'm now interested to see how this metaphor might inform our discussion of how students choose their learning, what structures we might put in place to provide learning ecologies and how we can support students to make the necessary connections... more on this later.

Our leadership team have already found Sieman's Learning in Context powerpoint very useful (see also this pdf paper) and I'm hoping to see him in Sydney later this year...

The above curriculum metaphors (apart from the last one) are sourced from: Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Labels: conceptual frameworks, curriculum, integral

posted by Roger Stack @ 9:41 AM 6 comments

Stories Teachers Tell One Another

"There's nothing new" and "Stop using jargon" are two messages I get from some teachers. They are two of the many commonly used catch cries that make up the old story of educational change. These are the stories told by experienced teachers about the nature of educational change - or at least the kind of change that they have repeatedly experienced in their careers... and now the only kind of change that some of them can see...

Other teachers however are beginning to tell a new story. A story of "working together" and "doing things differently." While all teachers have been participating in the same educational change processes over the last two years the stories being told are not the same.

While the majority of teachers are beginning to use phrases from the new story I still hear some of the old story... It takes time to let go of the past... a process described in Senge's U-Process as 'letting go'.

One interesting aspect of this transformation from a past to a future view is that those teachers with the most clearly articulated stories of the process are those who have not let go of the past. They tell the old story with clarity and certainty while those learning the new story are exploratory and tentative. The result is that outside listeners can get the erroneous impression that the majority of teachers are disempowered and against change.

This then has a detrimental feedback effect on those who are starting to embrace the new story... causing them to second guess their emerging understanding and empowerment. That's one of the reasons I have found Senge's U-Process model so useful - it helps us understand the nature of the transformation process - and to see where we all are on the curve...

Of course out of this comes the opportunity to discuss, clarify and reafirm the new story. And hopefully the opportunity to move on with confidence into an emerging future.

Labels: curriculum, leadership, storying, teaching, transformation

posted by Roger Stack @ 5:58 PM 1 comments

The New Story

David Warlick has posted on the Types of New Stories we need to be telling as we implement 21st century curriculum. He has set up a wiki and invited educators to begin "hacking" some new stories.

I've already taken the liberty of hacking David's graphic to include 'shared vision' - a suggestion from a comment on his post - as well as changing 'reform stories' to 'curriculum stories' because I think we are involved in more than re-forming curriculum - there is a necessary degree of trans-formation going on as we move beyond traditional structures and processes. I've also tweeked some of the words to suit a local audience.

Perhaps a more extreme version of telling a new story is 'branding'. I've been trawling so-called "21 st century educational institutions" on the web to find some examples. I've mashed a few to get the following brands, slogans or banners:

• Bringing knowledge to life
• Learning for life
• Community of inquiry
• The world has changed. So have we.
• School X: A learning community
• School X: Wired for learning (perhaps that should be "Wireless for learning" :-)
• School X: Your gateway to the world
• School X: Where learning comes to life
• School X: Building your confidence
• Follow your interests… Discover your dreams…
• Connecting learners with opportunities
• Your learning – Our future
• Got plans? We’ll show you how!

Any other ideas?

I also found a couple of interesting blogs on the subject - lots of $$$ and pitfalls here!
Marketing to College Students
Inside Higher Ed - Gaglines - with a link to a database with 150 taglines
Whisper

Labels: curriculum, storying, transformation

posted by Roger Stack @ 11:35 AM 0 comments

Flat Classrooms

I've been following David Warlick's exploration of the concept of Flat Classrooms.

Yesterday's post responded to a comment by David Davies that asked.. "to what extent do you think students in the not-so-flat classroom are not curious, not self-directed, uncommunicative, etc?" David responded by saying that "there is nothing new here, that you haven't already heard..." but I'm not so sure...

I agree that there may be nothing new in the sense that we have talked about these issues before and that students have always been learners. BUT I don't think we have talked much about systemic solutions that address some of these issues by looking at our underlying values and assumptions. Educational provision has rarely been built on conversations between "student and teacher, learner and curriculum, classroom and the world" that David is asking for in the flat classroom.

And I don't think we are seeing much of the kind of curiosity, self-direction and communication that we as a nation (Australia) now require of students - particularly among the more traditionally "academically educated" students. Government, business, community and higher education - who are looking at the economic and social realities of living and woking in today's globalised technology rich world - are telling us that students:

• are good at following "recipes learned at school" that provide solutions to closed problems,
• are curious to learn more within known boundaries and
• can communicate what they know.
  

BUT

• they are not good at open-ended problems
• they ask few questions
• they don't know what they don't know - and are over confident about what they think they do know
• they don't collaborate very well
• they are not innovative - particularly outside disciplinary boundaries

I also think there is much more to explore using this "flatness" metaphor... We need to question how much students need to climb disciplinary ladders of knowledge and skills based on assumptions about developmental stages and academic hierarchies.

Students are often told that they have to "master the basics" before doing more interesting and contemporary things within a discipline and across disciplines. Unfortunately that process often takes 12 or more years and many (most?) don't stay in education long enough to be inspired by the genuine communities of practice/inquiry that dealing with today's knowledge and issues at the leading edge. We need some "flatness" here as well.

Of course some students can see this for themselves. They are some of the really self-directed learners who learn beyond the classroom walls. Here is how one science student described his learning to me:

"As far as my reading goes it's generally the Internet or magazines (national geographic and new scientist) or books like brief history of time and universe in a nutshell (illustrated edition - much easier to read than the original) I have NEVER had a good science teacher but that probably has more to do with me than them!

I would be one of those @#$#@ students - like in grade seven we had to name one of the 'three' states of matter and she mistakenly picked me and when I said plasma she rolled her eyes and sighed.

That's how I feel every time I'm forced to learn something wrong, even in year 11 & 12 (last year) they teach us the 'model atom' and you just think “wrong” - friction “wrong” - and do stuff with your friends [till it comes to exam time]. The best advice I got was play dumb – don’t give the right answer - give the answer according to what you've been 'taught'.

That's why I could not teach physics because I'd want to explain the quantum flux to the kindergarten kids. Instead I'm [leaving the state] so I can get into the cutting edge stuff…"

Labels: 21stCentury, assessment, collaboration, curriculum, engagement, global, learning, teaching

posted by Roger Stack @ 7:50 AM 0 comments

Things are looking up...

It's official - we've turned Senge's corner! I've just returned from the first State PY10 Curriculum Implementation meeting for 2006. The review process has moved into a new phase with new structures and processes to facilitate the emergence (letting come) of learning, teaching and assessment practices to meet the needs of today's year 11/12 students.

Key changes from the 2004/5 structure include new Regional Learning Teams supported by Regional Project Officers that sit between school/college curriculum teams and the Statewide Curriculum Coordinators Team. There is a new Principal's Reference Group representing both government and non-government schools/colleges with formalised links to their respective Principal bodies, the new Tasmanian Qualifications Authority and the State OPCET Steering Committe.

Much of the meeting was used to look at possible support and coordination processes at classroom, school/college, Regional and State levels for the many project ideas that have been put forward by teachers, and curriculum teams over the last year.

Some of the many ideas from teachers of one college incuded:

• Global Learning and Leadership - International Student Program; Studies of Society and Environment teachers
• Human Powered Vehicle - Materials Design and Technology; Sport and Recreation teachers
• Science for the 21st Century - Science teachers
• Personal and Social Learning Environments - cross-college
• Integral Conceptual Frameworks - English teachers across 3 colleges
• Jumpstart to Visual Literacy - Visual Arts teachers

All projects address the Values, Purposes and Outcomes of the new year 11/12 Curriculum Framework and will be supported by resources allocated at school/college and State levels.

And that's just one school. With so much happening I suggested that we might use blogging and aggregators to help communication across the State and across government and non-goverment sectors. I received quite a few looks ranging from the enthusiastic to the mostly quizzical or incredulous. Blogs are not really a teacher thing - YET :-)

Labels: curriculum, ICT tools, transformation

posted by Roger Stack @ 8:10 AM 0 comments

Elements of a New System

Still trying to get my head around the ways in which ICT might support students, teachers and administrators as we begin to implement the new State Curriculum Framework for years 11/12...

The timing is 'interesting' because at my school (Hobart College) are currently rebuilding our network (15 servers, 400+ PCs, 1200 users) so I'm thinking from the ground up... mind you it all has to be in place within a month!

The new curriculum is about "engaging with all students in the learning that will empower them to create and realise purposeful futures." I have been looking at some docs (PowerPoint and a Table) from last year outlining the Learning Elements that make up part of the Framework. Note that these 'elements' are not implemented in isolation. The Framework emphasises an "holistic view of learners and learning."

Anyway... so far I have developed some maps trying to clarify some of the relationships between ICT and the new curriculum from different perspectives... Personal and Learning Spaces (basic and expanded) looking at the relationships between our existing portal infrastructure, student personal spaces on the internet, and www services; and Access and Publishing (basic and expanded) looking at how students (and teachers) access ICT and some of the information flows.

I have also started to list applications that might have a higher profile within the new curriculum such as:

MS Photo Story, MS Producer, MS Movie Maker - for storying, student voice and presentations
Windows Media Encoder - for podcasting, help files
CMAP - for concept/mind mapping
Skype - for national/global communication/collaboration
Vensim - for modelling systems, simulations, futures

We are currently installing MS Live Communications Server to gain more communication/collaboration functionality out of MS Office and MS SharePoint.

Lots to think about... and we still have the other 100+ apps to deploy... fortunately we have a skilled and efficient Computer Services team! Thanks guys :-)

Labels: curriculum, ICT tools

posted by Roger Stack @ 8:48 AM 1 comments

U Turning a System

This week sees the end of the second year of our curriculum review process and there is a definite buzz in many yr 11/12 campuses around the State as future possibilities begin to emerge. Our consultative review process appears to be following the 'U Process' described in Presence by Senge et al.

Sensing – knowing the whole system as it is
Letting go - of historical processes and perspectives
Presencing - taking time to reflect
Letting come - allowing new processes to become realised

We have spent a year (2004) sensing as we looked at best practice and issues of concern - all the time trying to let go of our preconceived assumptions about the form that the educational provision for year 11/12 students should take. Instead we concentrated on establishing a set of shared values and purposes among all teachers, students, parents and the community.

This year we took time to reflect on the learning, assessment and teaching principles based on our shared values and purposes.

In 2006 we move to allow new forms and processes of educational practice to emerge through trialling project ideas that have recently begun to surface from teachers. At this stage most campuses don't plan to implement any significant changes until 2007.

It hasn't been easy to follow the U Process. In the beginning many people had definite ideas about the "causes of problems" while others knew how to "fix the system", and still others argued that nothing need to change.

Now two years down the track most teachers and administrators are reasonably comfortable to move toward the realization of all our new curriculum values, purposes and principles without any clear view of what it will look like...

I think the challenge for 2006 as we move up the 'U' will be to let the system (which is all of us) transform as new forms and processes emerge. The danger is that we might latch on to a "successful" trial project as "the solution" before other unexpected and more interesting possibilities emerge.

We certainly "live in interesting times"... :-)

Labels: curriculum, leadership, systems

posted by Roger Stack @ 8:03 AM 0 comments

Thinking, Learning and Futures

Here are some of the key ideas I got from the presenters at this conference.


Thinking is about learning. Piaget said “Intelligence is knowing what to do when you don't know what to do.” (Claxton)

We now have fourth-generation theories on thinking/learning. Learning dispositions are transferable from one context to another and are transdisciplinary (Claxton).

We need to educate for the unknown by providing powerful conceptual systems, global perspectives and coherent big picture stories (Perkins, Eckersley, Olson, Slaughter).

‘Knowledge’ is problematic because it is increasing rapidly, is context fixated and for most people it is full of misconceptions (Perkins, Senge, Slaughter). Knowledge is a social phenomenon (Senge).

Local and global challenges are pressing and we require empowered positive thinkers capable of cross disciplinary synthesis, systems thinking, collaboration and shared intelligence (Eckersley, Moran, Ritchhard, Olson, Slaughter). We are beyond simplistic solutions (Moran, Senge, Eckersley).

Psychological and social well-being (mental, emotional, spiritual) are important for deep thinking and learning (Wood, Eckersley, Senge, Slaughter).

Spirituality (not religion) is a key emerging transformation of the late 20th/early 21st centuries (Senge, Eckersley, Olson).

Personal and social foresight requires a level of futures literacy as well as futures tools, methodologies and strategies (Slaughter).

Changes in Australian values, assumptions and access to ICT are leading to 'citizen centered' democracy where a market and economic forces are no longer the primary drivers in government and the public service bureaucracy. We need multidisciplinary risk-taking thinkers (Moran).

We need to be explicit about our assumptions and world views because they underpin our thinking and colour our perceptions (Senge, Olson, Slaughter, Varey). Memes and value systems are crucial factors in thinking, learning and the envisioning of desired personal and world futures (Barber, Perkins, Slaughter, Varey, Janson).

The world is not in crisis - our worldviews are (Varey). Our languages (eg mother tongue, bilingual, mathematical...) also filter our experiences, influence our comprehension and affect our sense of morality and hope (Gupta).

Thinking, learning and inquiry are important both within disciplines (ways of knowing and inquiry) and across disciplines (Perkins). What we teach is just as important as how we teach (Perkins).

We need to teach problem-prevention as much as problem-solving (Wood, Perkins). We need both individual and collective thinking - multiple intelligences and shared intelligence (Ritchhard, Wood, Moran). And collective creativity and inspiration (Mol).

With the advent of new 21st-century technologies individuals have access to knowledge and resources that can have an enormous detrimental impact on local and global communities. We need ethical understanding and spiritual perspectives (Olson, Slaughter).

Presenters
Marcus Barber - Swinburne
Guy Claxton – Bristol University, UK
Art Costa – California State University, Habits of Mind, USA
Richard Eckersley – National Centre for Epidemiology & Population, ANU, Australia
Sunetra Gupta – Mathematician, epidemiologist and author, Oxford University, UK
Jan Jansen - Sweden
Terry Moran - Secretary, Victoria Department of Premier and Cabinet, Australia
Jan Mol - Ad!dict Creative Lab - Brussels
Molly Olson - Eco Futures Australia, US Gov Advisor on Sustainability
David Perkins – Harvard, USA
Ron Ritchhard – Harvard, USA
Peter Senge – Society for Organisational Learning, USA
Richard Slaughter - Foresight International, Swinburne, Australia
Fiona Wood – McComb Foundation and Australian of the Year
Will Varey - Integral theorist, Australia

Labels: 21stCentury, curriculum, learning, worldviews

posted by Roger Stack @ 7:10 AM 1 comments

Gates Crashing the Curriculum Party?

America's high schools are obsolete according to Bill Gates.

Through the Gates philanthropic foundation he has spent nearly one billion dollars helping to rebuild or redesign 1500 US high schools. He doesn't claim to be an education expert but says that as head of a corporation and a foundation what he sees “leaves him appalled”.

He talks about how high schools fail to prepare most students for work, tertiary education and citizenship - because they were designed that way! He believes that in the past governments only required a small percentage of students to qualify for tertiary entrance but that today all students should do so. And he says that research has proved that all students can do so.

In his address to the recent US National Education Summit on High Schools he said that there are two arguments for better high schools:

• the economic argument - in today's global economy it hurts us if all students are not being educated
• the moral argument - we need to do something because it's hurting the students

He pointed out that as far back as 2001 India had almost a million more university graduates than the US - and that China now has twice as many graduates as the US. This puts the US behind in the international supply of knowledge workers - workers that are now only a mouse-click away.

The schools being funded by Gates are built on principles based around the “new three R’s“:

• The first R is Rigor – making sure all students are given a challenging curriculum that prepares them for college or work;
• The second R is Relevance – making sure kids have courses and projects that clearly relate to their lives and their goals;
• The third R is Relationships – making sure kids have a number of adults who know them, look out for them, and push them to achieve.

How is Australia's secondary education system hurting?
What kind of education would business interests here promote if they began to put large sums of money into secondary education?

Labels: 21stCentury, curriculum, learning

posted by Roger Stack @ 7:25 AM 0 comments

Framework Mapping

I've been playing with mapping the new curriculum framework... :-)

In this first one I have used a nested (holarchic) rather than hierarchic representation. I think holarchies better represent the notion of expansion and inclusion we might be after.
If you can't see it properly hold your mouse over it until you see the '<- expand ->' icon.

In the second version I have shaded the right hand side boxes to represent the notion that ALL stages are inclusive of ALL the curriculum principles - values to learning elements.

In the third version I have shown how extra words might be added to give some sense of the emergent whole for each level (called a holon). I am not happy with the words I have chosen but you get the idea...

The fourth version gets a bit more radical. I have changed some of the names trying to embrace different metaphors. On this doc I have started to look at other ways of describing the Learning Elements (don't really like the word 'challenges'...) .

I have also included Professional learning because feedback was critical that teachers didn't seem to be represented. Others would say that the learning refers to boths students and teachers. Anyway... I just put it in to see what people thought.

Finally here is a version from John exploring the idea of turning the pancake diagram on its side...


What do you think? Useful? Clumsy?

Labels: conceptual frameworks, curriculum

posted by Roger Stack @ 7:43 AM 0 comments