Before the Launch of Self-Directed Learning, We Talk

Before we launched our full week of Self-Directed Learning, my grade 7 students and I had some very frank discussions about school, learning and what we should be thinking about as we explore this model of learning. Our goal is not just to complete an independent study, but to develop a deeper understanding of what "school" and "learning" actually mean. We are very interested in discovering if this model would be effective in middle school.  Below are 2 ways we documented these discussions.

A Week-Long Experiment in Self-Directed Learning

Last Thursday I showed this video to my grade 7 students.

They were intrigued and excited by the idea of being in charge of their own learning. I asked if they thought this approach to learning would be possible in a middle school. Most thought it would be amazing if it could happen, but recognized that the decision making power is not in their hands. As one student said, "They" would never let it happen.

I proposed that we attempt to develop this model and determine how it might function in a middle school environment by taking 1 week to pursue fully independent learning. The students were excited by the idea.

On Friday we considered what issues might arise and what we would need to think about if this approach was implemented. I have information to share on this discussion, but will post later.  Next I gave each student a notebook and asked them to write a reflection on why (and if) they thought this was a good idea to try. Again, I will share these reflections later. Most thought it was a good idea. A few raised concerns and one was truly apprehensive. Finally, I gave each a tracking sheet to jot down what they accomplished each day. I explained that because we were attempting something new, it was really important to document our process. Students agreed that sitting through 23 presentations at the end of the week would be tedious, so instead, I assigned them to small groups of 3 - 6 and they will present to their group members.

They had the weekend to consider topic selection and by Monday most had found a topic; the  range of interests is enormous. I have one student who wants to learn how to bake and another who wants to know if there is a mathematical formula that will allow one to score a basket every time. Another wants to learn coding. Another is looking at the history of Apple. Another is learning how to apply complex nail polish patterns. Another is learning how to twist balloons and then using her creations to make a movie.  One student is curious about how people with Autism adapt to the workplace. Another wants to know why water heaters explode. Another is learning cake decorating. There are more topics, of course, but this gives a good sense of the range. The one restriction I placed on topic selection was that it be something they could learn during school time. It took some students time to settle into a topic; a few switched topics after the first day. One is completing several mini-topics.

On Saturday, I will be attending TVO's The Agenda Learning 2030 session in Peterborough on the future of education. Knowing that I have this opportunity to share my students' voices, I took one period today to discuss what they wanted me to say  when the topic of self-directed learning arises.

Here are some of their comments:

It's good. The whole thing is good.

In regular school the amount of work can be overwhelming. When you're in charge you have more control. You can take your time, but you're learning more.  There's more balance. You have time to "have a life".

(I pointed out what I observed - sustained focus from everyone in the class.)  "It is easier to stay on task and focused for longer because you get to choose something you are interested in."

"Most kids don't like school. This is way more interesting."  (This came from a student who excels. I asked her to clarify, because she is the typically successful academic student) "I work hard because I have to and want to but it is still boring. Even students who do well don't really enjoy it.

Kids drop out because they are bored and disengaged. This would keep them in school.

If you find the topic the teacher is teaching difficult, you still have to try to keep up. It's stressful. With the you can learn at your own pace and there's no specific due date, it's better.

You can pause when you need to if it takes more time to understand something.

The sharing of ideas is better.  It's way more interesting. Everyone is doing something really different so you don't have to sit through presentations on the same topic.

It's calmer. Less stressful.

Every school should have this.

I would want to come to school on weekends if learning could be like this all the time. (This from a student who is not a fan of school)

There's still "stress", but because it's your own challenge, it's different.

Depending on what your school board offers, in high school the choices are limited. You could miss out on things you need to learn for the field you want to be in.  This would let you learn what you needed.

(We got into a whole discussion on high school, marks, and mandatory courses)

You get more time to go in other directions if you come across something interesting.

(I also asked them to consider some of the negatives.)

I wouldn't want this all the time. Maybe for one week every month.

Sometimes it's hard. You can't ask the teacher because they don't know the answer. You have to figure it out yourself.

Some subjects like math and science shouldn't be self-directed. You need teacher support.

It's more efficient to have some things taught to you instead of having to figure out everything yourself.

People procrastinate, you have to have self-discipline because no one is telling you what to do.

I think personality is important. Not all kids would do well with this. There should be some kind of assessment to see who would be allowed in this kind of a program.

To which another student responded - you don't know how someone will do until you give them a chance. Kids who don't do well in regular school might do really well in this.

This is hard, but things in life are hard. You have to work for them.

Some kids need more help than others. If you were to have this, there are still all those kids who need a teacher to help them.
                                                 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .

It has been very interesting observing the dynamics and the ebb and flow of focus. There are students who've remained on task the entire time; others who work for extended periods and then take small breaks. Some stop to see what others are working on. Students seek my assistance only when needed for feedback or guidance. There are conversations about learning, sharing of topics and students assisting other students.  One student abandoned writing a novella when he realized another was learning to code. They are now working side by side, problem-solving, learning and bad-mouthing semicolons.

At the end of class today I reminded students that they should be prepared to share whatever they have learned and accomplished by Friday. One student responded, "It's going to be so hard to go back to the other way. I don't want this to end."

Feedback and Uncomfortable Moments

Class 71's Thoughts on Feedback

One element of the War of 1812/Napoleon Inquiry that I found particularly interesting was the conversation that developed during presentations on giving and receiving feedback.  I've gathered discussions points from this on-going conversation on the chart above.

It was one student in particular who prompted us to pursue a much deeper consideration of feedback than I had anticipated. He began his feedback with "I didn't like ..." Everyone was taken aback initially, but the learning that ensued was so valuable that I'm very glad it happened.

All students used Linoit to create their presentations. There is no right or wrong way to construct a Linoit board. It's a very open-ended presentation tool. Some presentations had very random placements, others were sequential and methodical.  Layout and design quickly became a focus, as the class debated the merits, strengths and weaknesses of various design choices.  After several lengthy considerations of various presenters' design choices, it was Ben who finally nailed the salient point: people in the class think differently and the design will reflect their approach to thinking. It is important to value the differences.

This led into another discussion on whether it is better to be blunt and honest when giving feedback or to avoid being critical.  The class agreed that honest was better. It was Lucas who pointed out that not being honest has long-term consequences. He used the example of someone who wants to be a writer. If no one ever tells this person that his or her writing needs improvement, it could have career consequences.  Sophie added that one should still consider the recipient, and how she gives feedback very much depends on who she is speaking to.  Gage was very adamant about what mattered most: the idea.  What the class did come to agree on is that how we frame feedback is important. Trying to be constructive is better and words matter. Given that, presenters need to be prepared to discuss and defend content and design choices.  They also recognized that we have choices in how to react and respond to feedback.


Finally we discussed our feelings around the source of the feedback. We value some people's opinions more than others'. It is important to consider the source, but it is also important to not automatically dismiss what is being said because of who is saying it.

What I was most pleased about was the growth I observed in students.  One student gave what she felt was her best presentation ever.  Normally she is nervous during presentations, but she realized that her classmates were going to question her design and content choices - even the minor ones - and that she would have to defend them.  She rose to the occasion and handled their critique and questions very well.  Other students learned to more carefully frame their feedback so that it wouldn't automatically be dismissed because of how it was being said, or so that it was more constructive.

We have by no means finished this discussion on feedback. There is still much to be learned and I look forward to discovering more alongside my students as we become more comfortable with the process.

Where Do Ideas Come From?

The timing for introducing Integrative Thinking to my grade 7s is perfect.  We are finishing up presentations from the War of 1812/Napoleon Inquiry and I have been thinking about where to go next. Simply beginning another inquiry for the sake of inquiry-based learning is not palatable. Students understand the process and have demonstrated superior growth. My obligation is to prompt them to move in a new direction so they further develop skills.

I decided to begin with a question: Where do good ideas come from? Students discussed this in small groups and then shared with the class.

 It's a nice little diagnostic and I'm curious to see how students will explain where good ideas come from at the end of this exploration of Integrative Thinking.

Next, I introduced students to key ideas from Ellie Avishai's keynote "Solving Tough Problems Through Integrative Thinking".  I'm not certain if the slides are in the public domain, so I will not be sharing those with you at this point. 

1. We see an entire world, but perceive only small pieces.

2. Our first impressions keep us from seeing the full picture.

2. We build mental models of reality. These models are always incomplete.

3. We are not always aware of our models.

4. Sometimes we see things that aren't even there.

5. We construct models when there really is no connection.

6. We are quick to accept over-simplified models.

7. We miss things that are right in front of us.

Mental models help us make sense of our world.

They are incomplete and often wrong.

We confuse the model with reality.

We tend to confirm what we think is true.

We had a lively discussion and in the afternoon went to the computer lab to further our learning. I no longer teach concepts and content that students can figure out on their own. Instead I gave them instructions:

1. Construct your knowledge on The Ladder of Inference.

2. Visit video, text-based sights and images to develop understanding.

3. Include:  TedEd Ladder of Inference 

Finally, they were asked to open up word and explain their understanding of the Ladder and how it can lead to errors in thinking or bad judgement. Not all students finished in 1 period, so on the second day, I added an additional  sight from The Waters Foundation. I had some great discussions with several students as they worked their way through the learning and there were also small groups who spontaneously gathered  to explore and discuss the site. Writing pieces began to appear towards the end of class. I've included several below.

Gage

Ben M.

Maeve

   

 Ben K.

Oban

Justice

After two days of exploring the concept, we are already beginning to identify when someone has gone up the ladder of inference during discussions. What a great tool for helping students (and teachers) recognize where thinking has gone astray. 

An Introduction to Integrative Thinking

Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to attend the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management's first I-Think event for educators.  The Rotman School of Management teaches Integrative Thinking , the ability to work with two diametrically opposed ideas and from them generate an idea that is better than either.  Attending the one day event has profoundly deepened my understanding of thinking and made me recognize just how limited my own thinking is. What we were introduced to yesterday were tools for moving beyond those limitations. The techniques we learned are taught in Rotman's renowned MBA program and that Roger Martin recognizes that these thinking tools need to be introduced to much younger learners and has developed an initiative to do so is a credit to the school.

We began the day by examining our mental constructs, how we form ideas and where our beliefs about the world come from. We learned how our brain gathers data and from that data we form pictures of the world and that these pictures are always incomplete representations. Based on those incomplete mental maps, we make assumptions, draw conclusions, form beliefs, make decisions and take action. We tend to ignore the less significant and avoid complexity but it is in examining the less significant and being able to contend with complexity that powerful ideas and superior solutions are found. We were introduced to The Ladder of Inference as a tool for dealing with our own mental constructs but also as a means of understanding how and why others think the way they do.

One of the sessions I attended yesterday was run by Nogah Kornberg. During it we learned how to find solutions to problems by working with two extremely opposite ideas to generate a better idea. The problem we worked with was designing a better school. We began with extremes:

1. The Traditional School
2.  The Online School
... and building a collective understanding of what those terms mean.

During this session I learned how important it is to develop clarity. One person's definition of "traditional" is not the same as another's. Solutions cannot be found unless we understand each other's definitions.  I learned that the two most important prompts to achieve clarity are:

"Tell me more ..."  and "What do you mean by that?"

We then went on to identify how stakeholders benefit from each model.  The stakeholders we worked with were:

1. Parents/Students                        2. Schools                    3. The Community

Once again, as we identified the points of views of the stakeholders, we spent a great deal of time clarifying what we meant. This caused us at times to have to reframe our definitions of Traditional and Online Schools.  Underpinning this entire discussion was the building of empathy -understanding needs of others - something that has been identified as an essential skill in 21st century learners.

We then identified, must haves - elements from each that we were not willing to give up. 

At this point, we ran out of time, but the next step would have been to use the information to invent a new model of school.

Nogah introduced us to the work of Taddy Blecher who used this method to develop and implement a free university model for Africa.

My next session was run by Christopher Federico, who taught us about Wicked Problems, how to think deeply by identifying the components of a problem and then how to use integrative thinking tools to begin finding solutions.  We worked with the problem of gun violence in the USA.  When we started, I honestly thought there were no solutions to this problem given that such extremely opposite points of view exist.  We started with the ladder of inference to try to identify the data that forms each side's point of view, and the benefits each sees in their point of view. Next in our groups we had to break down the problem by identifying links of causality

From this we saw that they way to begin solving a wicked problem is to change the conversation and address elements of the problems. We also saw that it is possible to find solutions that meet the needs of all stakeholders.

The best part of the day, however, was listening to 3 students from John Polanyi CI who had taken a one semester course on integrative thinking. They described the impact the course has had on their thinking and their lives. 

The day ended with a panel discussion and Q and A.

We talk so much in our PLN's about the need for innovation, that the kinds of students we are producing do not meet the needs of the innovation economy that is emerging.  We recognize the need for change; the question for many of us is how do we begin? What I found in Integrative Thinking are the tools to bring about that change. I learned what it looks and sounds like when people are solving complex, real world problems. I can't wait to begin using them with my students and for the opportunity to learn more.

The Rewards of Inquiry

This week students have been presenting their linoit boards on the War of 1812/Napoleon.  As mentioned in previous posts, this is the first time that I feel I've a complete handle on the inquiry process from start to finish.  This meant that I was better able to facilitate students' learning.  Inquiry, after all,  is not a free-for-all; it requires a great deal of structure to be successful  and there is a definite learning curve for teachers as they develop facilitation expertise.

In reflecting on inquiries and project-based learning from previous years, there were certainly times where chaos reigned in the learning environment and where the quality of student work was not what I was accustomed to seeing in final projects that were teacher directed. It takes time for facilitators to understand how to prompt high level critical and creative thinking which  is then reflected in quality demonstrations of learning. The rewards, however, are worth the growing pains!



Certain elements mark an inquiry that is running smoothly.

1. The quality of the conversations, debates, discussions and sharing that take place between students.

2. The sustained engagement of students as they pursue personal interests within the boundaries of the topic.

3. The relaxed atmosphere.

It was as students presented their work, however,  that I saw the full impact of this approach to learning.

What's different?

The depth of content knowledge that not just the A level students have, but that almost all students in the class now have.

The comfort level of students as they speak in front of the class.

The exceptional quality of  thinking - students are consistently making insightful inferences, thoughtful  observations and clever analyses as they present their work and as they comment on presentations.

The justifications students are able to make about the content they chose to include as well as their design choices.

The level of engagement of the audience as they listen to their peers. These students know the content and have formed opinions. They are challenging the accuracy of facts; they are admiring or questioning design choices.  They are debating the merits of the interpretations their peers make and the significance of various events.

The quality of feedback that students are providing to their peers; students are being very honest and open in their critiques. There is admiration for exceptional or innovative approaches and ideas as well as criticism for lesser quality work.  We've had some uncomfortable moments as we've worked through this aspect of inquiry but we are learning to be open and how to frame feedback so that it is constructive.

The personal satisfaction students express about what they've accomplished.


I will, with students' permission, be sharing links to their boards. Those boards, while nice to look at, won't tell the full story.  To really understand what they represent, one would have had to have been in the classroom, listening as they spoke. That experience I cannot provide.

In Self-Assessment, Timing is Everything!

Assessing our War of 1812/Napoleon Inquiry

When the Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation and Reporting in Ontario Schools document was released in 2010, teachers in my province were obligated to change assessment practices.  This was upsetting and at times confusing.  I certainly didn't initially understand what exactly was expected from me.  The Ministry of Education  ensured, however, that we move forward. They provided funding for release time so that we could meet with colleagues and develop practices. Much of our early efforts in providing meaningful feedback and teaching peer evaluation skills were experimental and included false starts and misinterpretations.  We got better at it, though.  As we experimented, understanding deepened. Today, my approach to assessment is very different from those early efforts.  In fact, I have probably spent more time thinking about and having conversations about assessment during our War of 1812/Napoleon Inquiry than during any work I've done previously with students. Even technology, while a component of the inquiry,has taken a back seat to assessment.  Much of this is due to the stage that I am at in my own professional development.   As I've learned how to teach within an inquiry  or project-based learning model, the place and purpose of assessment has risen to the fore.  

One element that has changed in my practice is the point at which students and I co-create success criteria. Students need time to play with ideas, conduct research and think critically about the information they encounter before being presented with the expectations of a culminating task and what final demonstrations of learning should look like. 

Previously, I would have developed success criteria at the beginning of the task. Discussion would have taken place before students actually began working.  Feedback and peer-evaluation would occur once the rough copy was finished.  The criteria would then be used to assess the final product.  For our current inquiry, after a great deal of learning and discussion in class, students were introduced to the linoit tool and  given very loose parameters: construct a board that displays what you have learned, what you think is important and what you have thought about during this inquiry. Some students began to immediately place content. Others took time to explore various themes before deciding on a final topic. As they developed understanding of the task, my role was to engage in conversations with students about their boards. 

"Tell me about your board.  What have you decided to include?  Where are you finding your information.  That's interesting, what else have you found out?  How do those ideas connect? ..."  My talk is deliberate. My goal is to get them to think about why they are approaching their work in the manner they have chosen.  I am constantly prompting them to engage in metacognitive thinking  

Students took different lengths of time to develop personal goals and purposes within the loose parameters.  At what I identified as the 2/3 point , we stopped to reflect on what they had accomplished so far and their next steps. One student volunteered to be interviewed in front of the class.  I love the idea of presenting a not yet finished project. This gives students time to reconsider and make changes before their work is cast in stone. 

All students were given a copy of the following and are expected to critique their own work as part of their final submission.

Linoit Board Critique

Research shows that students make the greatest gains in their learning when they are able to assess their own work, reflect on what they’ve accomplished, identify areas where more work is needed and then set their own goals for learning.  You are going to take some time to reflect on your learning for the Linoit Board.  Answer the following questions in full sentences on lined paper.

         1.    When you were asked to create a board that reflected what you had learned during this inquiry, what did
                 you decide to focus on? Why?

         2.      How successful do you think you were? Why?

3.      Is there evidence on your board that your vocabulary has grown?

4.      What further research did you conduct on your own? At home? At school?

5.      Describe a change that you made to your board and why you made it.

6.      Explain the layout of your board and how you decided to organize it.

7.      Was anything difficult about this project?

8.      What are you most proud about?

9.      How does your board demonstrate higher level thinking?

10.  If you were to do this kind of a project again, what would you do differently?

If you were to give yourself a mark on this project, what would it be?

-1         1          +1        -2         2          +2        -3         3          +3        -4         4          +4

Why?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In interviewing a student in front of the whole class using the above questions, all students learn how to think when critiquing their own work.  Presenting a not yet completed project is low risk for the student who models self-assessment. He could still go back and make improvements to his board. The student I interviewed stopped me the next day to explain how in going back to his board, he reconsidered some of his responses during the critique.  He had continued to think about his work beyond the interview in front of the class.

Students then returned to their own boards. Most students were discussing changes they were going to make or not make now that they had had this opportunity to think about their work. 

Today we stopped once again, this time to develop a final check list. 

I began the class with this, "All of you now know what it is like to create a linoit board that reflects your own learning. If you were to assess someone else's board, what would you look for?"  The class generated ideas which I gathered on chart paper. Then while students continued to work on their boards, I formalized the list.

War of 1812/Napoleon Linoit Board

Task: create a board that shows your learning.

What did you learn?

What did you think about?

What do you think is important to remember?

Success Criteria:

           

Content:                     4          3          2          1

-lots of detail

-additional research

-specific (ex: dates, number of ships or troops, names, places)

-accuracy

-vocabulary

-thorough

Thinking:                    4          3          2          1

-doesn’t just rely on retelling information, but attempts to interpret, make inferences

-includes questions you had or continue to have

Organization:                         4          3          2          1

-logical (ex; timeline, themed sticky notes, icons/emoticons)

Visual Appearance:   4          3          2          1

-pictures

-font

-lay out – it is clear that thought has gone into the layout

Mechanics:                 4          3          2          1

-capitals

-periods

-spelling

-sentence structure

Comments:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

As we were in the computer lab, I grabbed students screens to show them the list and asked, "Does everybody agree that this is what we are going to look for when we assess our work?" Students commented, suggested a few changes, but also spoke in terms of what they knew was still weak on their own boards.  They were much more "present" and engaged with the checklist than they would be if I was presenting it at the beginning of the inquiry. 

Inquiry: Teaching Students to Critique Their Own Work

Students are nearing the end of their linoit creations for the War of 1812 and the inadvertent Napoleon Inquiry that this unit evolved into.  I continue to be impressed by their work ethic and discoveries. In examining all that I have learned over the past 3 years about inquiry and project-based learning, I would have to say that this is the first time that I have a handle on the full cycle of inquiry. I get how to create an intriguing entry point. I understand how to build in constraints and boundaries that keep students focused and working within a curriculum yet exploring personal interests.  I know how to draw out thoughtful writing. I have The Thinking Matrix and Critical Thinking Wheel to focus and promote better thinking.  I understand how to frame the use of digital media tools so that students use them creatively but in ways that demonstrate learning. 

My professional growth during this inquiry has centered on feedback, formative assessment and self-assessment. John Hattie's work has influenced me greatly in this as his research reveals that the strategy that leads to the greatest growth in students is teaching them how to critique their own work. At what point should this happen though?

Throughout the week I have been moving around the classroom, answering questions, helping students locate information, pointing out errors in spelling and mechanics. I have also been learning from students who've been sharing discoveries (several students, for example, have found Napoleon's letters to Josephine online and are reading them) and features of the linoit tool. 

Most students are nearing completion and it is at this point that we stopped to take time for self-assessment.

The first thing I asked students to consider was their audience. How will peers, teachers or someone from the public view what they have created? I addressed spelling and was adamant that those who know they are poor spellers seek assistance from peers. I also pointed out that strong spellers must reach out and support poor spellers. They need to use their strengths to support each other as learners.

Next I asked them to consider what kind of thinking their boards display.  Have they relied primarily on Retell/Summary - lots of facts, but no analysis? Can I see their opinions? Their judgements? Have they included their lingering questions or those that arose over the course of the inquiry?

One of my good thinkers countered with, "Doesn't that introduce bias?" My answer was yes, but at some point we are going to draw conclusions, evaluate and judge. What is interesting to me as a reader is what, after all that they have read, viewed and discussed, do they think about the War of 1812 and Napoleon?

Finally, I talked about layout. Does their layout make sense? Is there a flow to it?

Students then returned to their boards to assess what they have done so far and to continue.  Several students called me over to share their boards and explain the rationale for their decisions on what to include. Some asked for my opinion. Some realized that improvements were needed without any feedback from me.  A few students who were finished circulated to provide spelling assistance.

Tomorrow we will take more time for this very important skill. Students will view each other's work and provide useful feedback. 

Surprised by Boys

 At the mid-point of the PBS Documentary on Napoleon (see previous posts), I asked my grade 7 students to reflect on the following:

1. What are Napoleon's most significant accomplishments so far?
2. Do you think he was right to crown himself  emperor?
3. What has surprised you most about Napoleon?
4   a. What are his character strengths?
     b. What are his weaknesses?
5.  Predict what might happen to him.

Today after school, I sat down to review their work.  Before I share what students wrote I would like to describe the atmosphere in my classroom during this unexpected exploration.

One of the weaknesses of middle school history textbooks is that they often present an "adult"-erated version of history, one that is sanitized and reduced to key dates and events - information with no context and no real story. The result is a failure to connect students to the people of particular time periods and worse, a climate where students go through the motions of learning but aren't necessarily thinking deeply or passionately about the subject matter.

This was not the case at all with the PBS documentary. Napoleon's full persona was revealed; students had the opportunity to see his humanity as well as his exceptionality.  They came to admire him, even though they did not particularly like him.

At one point in the documentary, I attempted to zoom ahead. I felt that students had a good sense of who Napoleon was and what he had accomplished and thought  we could skip over a few of his wars in order to see how his life ended.  This was met with a loud chorus of, "No's ...." When I questioned why, students responded with, "It's interesting. Seeing his strategies is the best part." I have to say I was not expecting this. It was boys in particular who protested loudly.  It took me a while to realize that most of the boys in my class are gamers.  A huge entry point for them into Napoleon's story would, of course, be his battle strategies. So much of what interested them even during discussions centered on this, whether it was how he placed his troops or how he used propaganda to manipulate others and promote himself. They were in awe of his intelligence and his willingness to sacrifice everything in order to meet his goals, including abandoning troops which shocked many of them.  This was not the only aspect of Napoleon's life that caught their interest, though.  His relationship with Josephine was a hotly debated topic.

Back to our writing assignment, and in particular, the boys.  So much discussion these days centers on how to engage boys, about how to get boys to write, about how boys are falling behind girls in academic achievement. After reading what the boys in my class wrote, I realized that there is nothing wrong with boys today. Give them a meaty enough subject; provide them with ample time to view, discuss, debate and question; allow time to explore deeply rather than rush through a topic and boys have no problem writing.

The work they submitted was carefully crafted.  They provided reasoned opinions supported with specific evidence - so detailed that I was surprised at what they remembered from the documentary.  They justified their interpretations. Subject specific vocabulary was incorporated.  They displayed  a superior level of insight and analysis. Sentence structure was fairly accurate. I was impressed. I would also say that this is not typical of what grade 7 boys produce independently, without prompting.

Given what my students produced, I've been reflecting on why it is often difficult to extract this level of written work from many of them.  I think it comes down to curriculum and how it's presented. It's lame.

Creating Bridges Between Islands of Excellence

Last November I had the pleasure of attending an event with the very delightful name: Islands of Excellence.  The event was organized by two people whose work I admire very much, Kathryn Meisner and Jennifer Chan of  Make Waves.  "Make Waves is an education innovation catalyst ...(they) ...  build creative culture, ignite new connections and inspire agile strategies."  

Make Waves is by no means the only project these two have on the go.  They are engaged in many endeavors that place them in a somewhat unique position, one that bridges the education and innovation sectors.  This means that through their work they come into contact with  a very diverse community and most of all some very interesting people doing exceptional things. Jennifer and Kathryn recognized that it would be beneficial to bring this wide range of innovators together to share ideas and engage in dialogue to see what might become of it.  I was honoured to be invited to attend and even more honoured to have my conference fee paid for in scholarship form by Microsoft Partners in Learning, one of the  sponsors of the event. 

The event was divided into two very distinct formats. Friday evening was for meeting people, informal conversations and then a series of speakers who presented using the Pecha Kucha model. It's always fun to get to meet new people and sitting at my table was, Rita Funder of Career Mash. I was familiar with Career Mash having visited their website a few times and it was a pleasure to meet the woman behind the organization. Career Mash is funded by industry. Its goal is to make students aware of the how technology mashes together with all careers and to show them the many career possibilities available if they are technologically literate. I found out from Rita that their organization's mandate has grown to cover south-western Ontario and she was seeking ways to bring Career Mash's services to us. What a great connection. After the event I was able to put Career Mash in contact with my principal and am looking forward to role models visiting our school to share their experiences and expertise with middle school students at no cost to us.

The presentations then got underway. It was impressive to see the range of ideas, creativity and possibilities that each speaker offered as a way to bring innovation to education. A few stand out in my mind. 

The first was Andy Forest of Maker Kids Andy runs a hacking centre for kids. Kids can come and make - whatever they want - using grown up tools - and their own ideas. They can design, build, test, fail, redesign, improve, and learn.  Every school needs a Maker Kids space. Currently, most learners in our schools spend their days directed and instructed by teachers. In many cases, standardized testing has narrowed our focus, instructional goals and expectations.  Listening to Andy speak about how confident and engaged young innovators are in the space he offers, once again made me question many of our current education practices.

Another speaker who stood out was Ashley Lewis.  Ashley matches none of the geek stereotypes so often seen in  media. Ashley is young, vibrant and doing some very cool work. Some of you may have come across it recently if you visited the TIFF James Bond exhibit  which just ended in Toronto. One of Ashley's many projects involves teaching girls to code. It was inspiring to see her vision of girls as creators rather consumers of technology.  When I returned to school, I was able to put two of my former students who had been instrumental in the success of our App project, in contact with her as they had been looking for a next step.

Two more were Mandy Wintink and Julian Diego. Mandy is looking to reinvent post-secondary education.  Julian of Sketch is bringing hope to street youth by providing a space where they can explore the transformative power of creativity. All speakers that evening offered exceptional ideas and are involved in some amazing projects. I strongly recommend you visit the Makes Waves Here site to learn more.

Saturday was organized with a different purpose. It was a day to delve more deeply into ideas about education.  It began, however, with Zumba, an activity designed to take us right out of our comfort zones. Mission accomplished! It certainly brought the energy level up and put us in the right frame of mind for the day.  

Tables were set up around the room covered in brown mural paper with markers and pens at the ready. Participants chose a seat and then were given a topic of discussion. The paper was there for us to document our conversation. Once time was up, participants changed tables to form new groups and were given a new question to consider. Over the course of the morning we were given three different questions to discuss.

What is school for?  
What is the future of education now? 
How can we change education systems? 

 Conversations were rich, often filled with laughter and highly engaging.  I appreciated being at tables with people from all levels of education as well as with those outside of education  who bring a broader perspective to education conversations. 

We were also given time to explore our own creativity. We were seated in two rows facing each other. Each person in one row was given a different small Lego structure and we had 1 minute to come up with 10 explanations of what it was. After one minute the Lego was passed down the line. We also had to build something with Lego pieces within a given time and explain its purpose.

Lunch was fabulous.

During the afternoon we had the opportunity to pose our own questions for discussion.  The question that stood out for me centered on money. How do we fund technology and innovation projects in our schools given the current financial climate – a very worthy topic. I learned that it is possible to access grant money. I was able to share how to enter technology contests and competitions to win prize money. One person is working on a fabulous project to bring sustainable funding to innovative initiatives and I am looking forward to the launch of that one.  Many more ideas were generated. It felt as if we were in an idea incubator and I really appreciated the opportunity to have this discussion.

The day ended with a closing circle and a chance to share what we had gotten out of the day as well as where we might go next in our desire to bring innovative practices to education. Once again we had three questions to consider:

What can I do? 
What can we do? 
What is bigger than us? 

Islands of Excellence left us with new connections, compelling ideas and a vision for the future of education. The question now is how do we build bridges between these isolated pockets of innovation and expand these types of initiatives so that more learners have the opportunity to experience a different approach to education that matches more appropriately the requirements of today? 

A Student's Question Drove Our Learning This Week

This week in grade 7 we addressed one of the questions students had about the War of 1812. How come the British talk about the war that took place in Europe, but don't remember that they also fought a war in North America?  We watched a PBS documentary on Napoleon to find answers. It was compelling!  Unlike history textbooks, it didn't gloss over the less savory aspects of Napoleon's life and kept the students captivated for the week. It led to fabulous discussions about power, the role of women in Europe at that time, character flaws, strategy, propaganda, arrogance and quite a few others.  Part way through the documentary students were required to answer opinion questions. For the most part students admired his accomplishments, but didn't particularly like him. They also realized why the British would focus on the European war rather than the North American conflict.

Once the documentary was finished, I was left with a decision: how am I going to assess learning?  Creating a test on Napoleon and the War of 1812 in light of all that we had seen and discussed seemed a very weak finale.  Instead, students are using linoit to demonstrate their learning.  What have they learned? What do they feel is important to know about the War of 1812, Napoleon, the Napoleonic Wars, Josephine, ambition, power, arrogance, pride, courage, strategy ...

Again I come back to the idea of liberating constraints: students work within the boundaries of subject content and tool, but within those boundaries are able to pursue their own interests and fully demonstrate learning in ways meaningful to them.  As they construct their boards, they seek clarification, and pursue more knowledge.  I receive questions such as, "Where was it that Napoleon won his first battle by firing at the ships in the harbour from the hill?"  "Was it in Egypt that Napoleon abandoned his troops?" "What was the name of his second wife?" "What is that word, when someone is lower down and then they move up in the army?" Access to the wealth of material online allows them to go deeply into topics.  One student is very captivated by the story of Josephine and Napoleon. She discovered one of Napoleon's letters to Josephine, and is including it on her board.  Another student is interested in the many battles and is finding country flags from that time period and pictures of the armies.  In the end, students will have thought more deeply and have a longer-lasting  understanding than any test would have caused them to have.  As one student said, the problem with tests is that you study and then forget the material two weeks later.

Lucky for us the Eye of Napoleon exhibit is on until May at the Art Gallery of Hamilton. We'll have the opportunity to see many things that we saw in the film, including the famed Napoleon Crossing the Alps painting in a smaller version, as well as one of his famed hats.  It's nice when events align in this way; the teaching and the learning become easier.