Beginning the New History Curriculum with Theory Building

The new Ontario grade 7 History curriculum begins in the year 1713. Perhaps that year should have said something to me right away, but I'll confess, it didn't. It took some research to find out why that seemingly arbitrary year is our starting point. To launch the unit, I wanted to find out students' starting points. When they hear "1713", what do they imagine life in Canada was like?

To do this, though, students had to first clear up misconceptions about the word "technology". I placed one object on each group's table: a ruler, a stapler, a pencil, a paper clip ... and asked, "Is this technology?" It is common for people to understand technology to be electronic and my students were no different. It took some discussion before they reached clarity.

Students moved to an independent silent thinking activity that took about 40 minutes. For those who follow my blog, you'll know why that independent thinking time is so important.

I distributed this sheet and asked them to imagine life in Canada in 1713. What was it like? What were their theories and could they explain why they thought that?

This was an unexpectedly revealing activity. The number of students who described gender roles in variations of "men went out and did all the hard work and women stayed home and looked after the children and did the easier work" was alarming.

It was, however, a pleasure to watch students wrestle with thinking. Did they have electricity then? Were there roads? Several were frustrated that they weren't allowed to find answers to their questions so they could construct better theories. Many students realized that how they answered one box impacted responses in others. Some students had extensive schema to draw upon; others very little. Some students could make extended connections; others struggled. I, however, now have a very clear picture of how my students think.  

Education, Design Thinking and the Value of Story

I had an experience this week that was a stark contrast to any kind of planning I have encountered in education. It was in that moment that I realized why we are so often unable to find truly innovative and satisfactory solutions to challenges within our schools. We’re not just working in school systems designed for a previous era, we’re also using problem-solving strategies and tools designed for a previous era.

I am part of a group at University of Toronto's Rotman I-Think initiative exploring how we might create capacity for Integrative Thinking in teacher education. Our first meeting took place guided by some very skilled facilitators who understand the principles of design thinking - something that I have only begun to explore in depth this year.

Typically when planning happens in schools - as I have experienced it, this may not be the case everywhere - we come together in a rush; state the problem, suggest solutions and then select. Part of this has to do with the nature of schools. We are social workers, educators, supervisors, coaches, volunteers, administrators and crisis intervention workers rolled into 1. We are also constrained by insufficient personnel and limited budgets.  Decisions are limited by the series of official policy binders that come down from above - we have shelves full of them. Board officials are accountable to the Ministry of Education, the Ministry is accountable to the Premier and our elected representatives.  Our elected representatives work under the scrutiny of the ever fickle media who shape stories. The next election is always within sight. Unions who work hard to protect working conditions, salaries and benefits negotiate contracts that limit how schools can be structured and who can work in them. Parent perceptions impact our choices. Finally, our professional development days which could be used to allow in-depth conversations that lead to thoughtful well-structured solutions have disappeared. (Buried under all this weight are the children).  This means that our work is often reactive. A situation arises and it must be dealt with. Often, though, our solutions are unsatisfactory and frequently, whatever strategy is selected is never implemented or poorly implemented because we are faced with the next 'crisis'.

I came to the realization this week that how we approach solution finding is part of what is limiting our ability to move forward. Because we work under these enormous pressures we enter into conversations with solutions already in mind. We have no framework for exploring whether or not we are even solving the right problem, nor the tools for devising appropriate and effective solutions. Our approach leads to hits and misses.

Problem Exploration

Integrative and Design Thinking work very differently. Planning begins with the belief that until a complex problem has been fully explored any suggested solutions are premature and may even limit one's ability to find innovative solutions. Central to all of this is the ability to recognize assumptions and conclusions so that the actual problem that needs to be solved can be discovered. What Design and Integrative Thinking provide are very flexible tools to engage in this process. Finally, any solutions found must be built on a foundation that is human-centered. Solutions must meet the needs and goals of those who will be impacted by the solution. To find a human-centered solution, Design Thinking begins with story and that is where we began.

We were asked to share two personal stories one positive, one negative about our experiences as learners from any point in our education - formal or informal. As each person told his or her story, listeners were asked to "notice what we noticed". Once a story was finished we shared our observations which were gathered on chart paper. It was here that I once again saw the benefits of something Richard Messina refers to as "idea diversity". Different people notice different things which brings a richness to the extraction of information. Finally, once all the observations were visible we were asked to look for patterns.

The group leaders were trying to find out what creates a valuable educational experience. No assumptions were made ahead of time of what that might be. Through the human-centered stories valuable information emerged. Finally, by identifying patterns in the stories, the group could begin to create a model of what a valuable educational experience looks like.

On the drive home that evening I pondered how much time we waste circling around solution finding because we don't have training and strategies for this. When I first brought Integrative Thinking into my classroom, it was because I felt it provided a toolkit for effective inquiry. I now see that it is essential that educators, administrators and policy makers become Integrative and Design Thinkers if we are to move beyond merely implementing innovative practices here and there, and instead design a school system that meets the needs of the current era. We can't design an appropriate system if we are still using the problem solving approaches and planning tools of the previous century.

Structuring Effective Collaboration and the Place of the Individual

When someone says "group work", there are common reactions - students who usually end up doing all the work cringe; students who are adept at riding on coat tails smile; teachers who struggle with how to measure and assess student contributions worry about accountability.

My early attempts at resolving these problems included something called "Co-operative Learning", in which tasks were structured in specific ways and students took on assigned roles in order to achieve a group goal. While I did see some benefits to this approach, I also saw limitations, primarily around student agency. Being assigned the role of "recorder" or "reader" did not always play to a student's strengths and a group could become bogged down if group members were unhappy with their assigned roles. There was a level of falsity or "schoolness" to the format.

We then moved to flexible groupings which were more responsive to the needs of learners. If through reading student work it was discovered that 5 students did not understand an element of a task, those students would be brought together so that the misconception could be resolved. Often this would be done with the support of the Learning Resource teacher. I would explain the need and then send that small group for assistance.

Collaborative Inquiry requires learners to work together to solve a problem, complete a project or find answers to their personal questions within the boundaries of the curriculum and then create something which demonstrates learning. With Collaborative Inquiry, however, there is still the issue of individual accountability.

There is also an issue that I was not aware of until now - that in order for innovative solutions to problems to be found, it is important that there be distance between group members.

Clive Thompson, Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our World for the Better,
p. 164

It became very clear to me. Groups often end up with "group think" and tend to go with the ideas and decisions of the quickest thinker or the most dominant member of the group who then ends up feeling used because he or she has done all the work. Quieter students who need more time to reflect and process can lose their voices in groups. How one structures the collaborative process is key to reaching "idea diversity".

I decided to test this out. At our last PD day our school made an enormous cultural shift. We had a very rich discussion that led to a vision of our school where everyone is now a teacher and a learner. This had been happening intermittently in other classes. Sheila Ashcroft-Shupe regularly has grade 8 students teach dance to younger students, our grade 4 teacher, Kelly Dunford has had her students teach a math lesson to another class. We have reading buddies. Teachers say that they learn a great deal from students, but there has never been a cultural norm where students and adults see ourselves as people learning together. This is new.

In light of that discussion I decided to give my students the task of teaching younger students how longitude and latitude works. I was not, however, prepared to teach longitude and latitude to my students. They would have to learn it on their own. Normally, I would put students into groups or have students self-select groups so that they could begin discussing the task. This time, I didn't do that. Students have no idea who their group members will be. First they must work individually to understand the topic so that when groups are finally formed each person will have information and ideas to bring to the table.

They had a few days to construct knowledge and on Friday we discussed the process. Students love the idea that everyone will be coming to the group with some level of understanding and will have something to contribute. They recognized that if they were in a group where someone already understood longitude and latitude, they would not have to bother to learn it. They also acknowledged that there was less socializing and time wasting because they were working on their own.

They did, however,  see a problem with efficiency. Having everyone learn the same information ahead of time is in some ways a waste of time. It would be beneficial to have different group members research different aspects of the problem and then share that knowledge with the group. When we come together next week, we'll see if we can discover a way to balance the need for individual processing and expediting that process.

Next week we will hold a Knowledge Building Circle. Students will share what they learned, build on each other's ideas and hopefully, clear up misconceptions. Only then will students move into groups so that they can begin planning how they will teach what they have learned to younger students.  To do that they will be using the Avocado Model. They will have to sift through the groups' information to identify essential information that they feel a grade 4 student should know about longitude and latitude.

This post has generated discussion on twitter. The video below came via Jared Bennett

Other links sent to add to the discussion.
From @brendasherry http://theconstructionzone.wordpress.com//?s=journal+zone
From @s3bertran the work on  information asymmetry by noble economist Joseph Stiglitz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz and his speech on learning societies. http://live.worldbank.org/conversation-joseph-stiglitz-president-obama-council-jobs-and-competitiveness

Inquiry Working Group

The Inquiry Working Group has met twice and is certainly evolving as I'd hoped it would.

1. Self-organizing and self-directed. While I have benefited from many in-services and formal learning events organized for me. I recognize the value of self-directed PD and the benefits that come from events such as Edcamp that bring diverse voices together to engage in open conversation and sharing of ideas and practice without the constraint of having to speak from one's position or role within a system.

2. Cross hierarachy - Breaking down the hierarchy was key. Better ideas and practices emerge when different levels within the system are present and engaged in discussion.

3. Cross-division - my hope was that primary, junior, intermediate and high school educators would be able to share points of view and practice so that we could develop a fuller understanding of the changes taking place at each level as well as gain insight into how divisions can help each other shift to student-centered learning.

4. Cross board - we are all educators. My hope was that public and separate educators would come together and that voices from the independent school system and home schoolers would join our conversation on inquiry-based learning. (This goal has been met in a very limited way - we have a few members from other boards within the public school system)

5. Limit size -Keep the group at 20 members because any larger than that makes the conversation unwieldy.


6. Create a new model for PD that is recognized and valued.  I am working on a badge system using available tools to formally recognize the learning that takes place within self-organizing systems. This is an exploration, not a goal.


Our group has met twice now. We are made up of teachers - junior, intermediate and high school -  several Student Success Coaches, 1 Principal and 1 VP and 1 consultant. We are cross board (yeah) and we have had two outstanding conversations and sharing of practices, challenges and ideas.

It was invaluable to hear administrators' questions and concerns on how to better support staff as we make this transition to inquiry.  Learning about the challenges unique to their positions within the system fosters empathy - a goal of 21 century fluencies. Their insights, gained from observing and supporting many teachers making the shift, provided a larger picture of the process we are currently under going.

It was invaluable to hear the challenges of Student Success Coaches who are just learning inquiry while having to support teachers making the transition to inquiry.

It was invaluable to hear how educators in other boards are making changes within their practice.

It was having a high school teacher present though, that stood out for me. I teach grade 7. I will be sending these students off to a system that I have experienced only as a parent of two children who have now moved on to post-secondary.

Things I learned:

1. High schools are just beginning the transition that elementary began 5 years ago and many educators are feeling the stress, confusion and uncertainty that we experienced when we began to shift practice.
2. The semester system is really not conducive to inquiry as content heavy curriculum makes teachers feel that they must "cover" content.
3. There are early adopters and resistors.
4. High schools have begun to notice that elementary is now sending them a different kind of student.
5. The mandate that all sections of a course must be the same is a barrier to inquiry.
6. Strategies and inquiry-based practices are being used in secondary.

I think high school teachers have a great deal to learn from elementary teachers who are farther along the road and I think elementary teachers have a great deal to learn from high school teachers who are tasked with preparing children for the post-secondary world. I hope this conversation expands beyond the Inquiry Working Group.

7. We have incredible teachers in our schools. Outstanding practices, ideas and strategies were shared that will now filter back into classrooms within our system.

Using Accountable Talk to Consolidate Knowledge and Identify Misconceptions

This post is part of a series from our grade 6 Mapping Inquiry

Post 1: How do you transfer a 3D form to a 2D space?http://www.heidisiwak.com/2013/10/class-61-begins-inquiry-world-cafe.html
Post 2: My Students "Invent" Topographic Maps http://www.heidisiwak.com/2013/10/mapping-as-problem-to-solve.html



Today we took time to:

1: Consolidate learning.
2. Use the language of the discipline to create a coherent explanation of the work we've been doing in mapping.
3. Identify misconceptions.

I used accountable talk as the entry point.

Students were given a sheet of vocabulary that we had been using as we activated schema, solved mapping problems and constructed knowledge by viewing videos of projections and exploring atlases.

Students worked in pairs, cut the words up and then built connections. They were required to speak in sentences using the vocabulary to explain mapping concepts. This was a fantastic opportunity for me to hear which students were confidently using the vocabulary in the right context, which students "kinda got it", which students were confused and which had misconceptions that needed to be corrected.

Finally, students worked individually to write explanations of mapping.

Causal Models Help Uncover Hidden Thoughts

One of the great struggles in teaching is getting students to think deeply.

My grade 7 students have been reading Ray Bradbury's All Summer in a Day. An idea that I wanted students to consider was responsibility  - who is actually responsible for the main character, Margot, being locked in a closet while the sun came out after 7 years of rain?

After listing as a class who they considered responsible:

the kids

the teacher

parents

scientists

the author

Margot herself

I distributed a Circle of Responsibility sheet and asked them to fill it it and explain their distribution of responsibility.

Most were completed looking something like this; it was very apparent that they had remained at a superficial level of thinking. This is a framework that encourages students to find reasons for their opinions, but does not ask them to think at a deeper level, nor to find connections between their justifications.

The next day we constructed a Causal Model of responsibility. A causal model is a tool that helps make thinking explicit. It breaks down the hidden layers and causes students to build connections between ideas.

After identifying the parents, for example, we ask why - Why would they bring Margot to a planet where it rains for 7 years? This led students into deeper thinking - was it a money issue? Were they looking for adventure? Had they been forced to come? What might cause them to seek that level of adventure? Why would they be so desperate for money? How are the scientists connected to their decision?

As students dig deeper into causality, they begin to link ideas and see how one aspect influences another.  It is a fun thinking task to engage in. I love how students enter into the play of generating and linking ideas. It's very freeing as a thinking tool. Most of all, students began to see that distributing responsibility for Margot's dilemma is actually quite complex, that determining responsibility for an injustice is not an easy task.

Mapping as a Problem to Solve

This is a follow up to this post - on mapping as inquiry.
http://www.heidisiwak.com/2013/10/class-61-begins-inquiry-world-cafe.html


Grade 6 students continued with their exploration of mapping and the challenge of transferring a 3D world to a 2D surface. After building models of the classroom that included the arched ceiling, students had to think about how to flatten the structure so that all aspects were showing. We observed and discussed how collapsing walls in certain directions would cause different outcomes - walls could turn into straight lines, parts of the room would be no longer visible. Deciding what to do with the ceiling was challenging because simply pushing it to the floor would cause a great deal to disappear.

 Eventually groups realized that the roof could be peeled backward and that collapsing all 4 walls outward would be an elegant solution to the problem.

Students realized, however,  that the walls would become disconnected which led to a discussion of distortion which brought us to the beach ball that had been sitting on my desk all week - a source of on-going speculation. Why was it there?

We reviewed the continents which I drew in marker on the ball and then, to the students surprise, I cut the ball.

Antarctica became stretched out, continents were cut open and the problem of what to do with the now open space became apparent. This astonished students. They realized that the maps they had come to accept as representing the world, were not accurate.


It was time to head to the internet and explore projections. Students were free to follow their interests within the boundaries of our topic to construct their knowledge.

In their reflections students commented on what surprised them and what they understood now about maps, that they didn't know before.

Our next mapping activity, was again presented as a problem for partners to solve. How can you represent the height of a mountain on a 2-Dimensional surface?  Students first had to figure out how to roll a rectangle into a cone - a surprisingly difficult task for some.

Once again I was fascinated by the depth and richness of discussion. It was accountable talk at its finest - all students engaged in focused conversation using higher level thinking skills to analyze and find a solution for a problem.  Their solutions were varied.

Birds Eye View

Once students found their solutions, 1 person from each partnership went to visit others to see how they had solved the problem. They then shared what they had seen.

Finally I introduced the term topographic map and sent them to the iPads to explore. Students were surprised to discover that map-makers used the same solution that the had come to independently. They entered into conversation about the lines and several realized that narrow distances between lines meant steep slopes and wide spaces meant gentler slopes.

Towards the end of class we gathered to confirm our new knowledge. One student volunteered to go to the board and explain how a topographic map works.

Other than providing a rich problem, tools for solving it and facilitating conversations, I did minimal direct instruction. It was a satisfying moment when the class realized that they had taught themselves.

RSCON 4: Facilitating Inquiry

Reform Symposium is an online global event that connects educators from around the world. It is an exceptional opportunity to share and learn from those at the forefront of student-centered learning.

I will be presenting on the Art of Facilitating Inquiry, sharing powerful techniques and strategies that cause thinking and collaboration to be better. These are shifts I've made in my practice that have profoundly changed how students interact and engage with learning.

Please join me.
Saturday October 12
4 pm EST
Session Description:

Recording of My Session 
The entire schedule for this 3 day event is here as are instructions on how to attend. http://www.futureofeducation.com/page/attending-rscon-2013


Slideshare of My Presentation

Facilitating inquiry from siwak62

Class 61 Begins Inquiry - World Cafe, Mapping and Models

World Cafe

Our grade 6 inquiry on community and mapping began with  World Cafe which is a communication method that I learned from Jennifer Chan of Exhibit Change who has extensive experience facilitating unconference events.

Students entered the room and selected seats at desks that were organized in groups of 4. I then gave them topics to discuss.

1. What pops into your head when you hear the word "mapping"?

Conversations were active, low-stress and allowed students to begin activating their prior knowledge or schema. After a few minutes, I stopped the conversations and asked students to get up and find a new table to sit at where they were given their next topic to discuss:

2. How does your family use maps?

Again, after a few minutes students moved and were asked:

3. What kind of things can you map?

and

4. What skills do you need to make a map?

At the end of the discussion I asked students why we had used this format. They got it:

1. "It allowed us to hear many different ideas."
2. "We got to work with lots of different people."



Problem-Solving

For those who have stood at the front of the class instructing students on how to use a duotang or write a title, date and subheading, and still ended up with 1/4 of the class doing this incorrectly, this is for you.

I handed duotangs and 1 sheet of paper per student to each table and said, "Discuss with the group how to insert a sheet into the duotang" This actually caused them to closely examine the folder, talk about how the holders open and close and discuss which way the paper should be inserted. Every student ended up with a centered title that was underlined and space between the title and sub-heading which was in line with the margin. No instruction needed. This is such a simple to get students to collaboratively begin solving problems.

Students then had a few minutes to note what had been discussed during world cafe.

Developing Conceptual Understanding of Mapping

My unit on mapping used to begin with the whole class learning to identify continents, oceans, major lines on a map, hemispheres, longitude and latitude. YAWN.

The goal  though is for students to develop conceptual understanding of what it means to transfer a 3-dimensional world to a 2-dimensional surface. So we began our inquiry with a problem. Our classroom is rectangular with a spectacular arched ceiling. I gave groups of 4 a large sheet of paper and asked them to map our classroom. This was hard and led to intense conversation, observations, false starts and design challenges and was probably one of the richest mapping tasks I have ever done with students. Students struggled, but persisted.  After 20 minutes students had the opportunity to visit other groups to see how they were approaching the task and take back ideas to their own groups.

Build a Model

Today groups were given paper, popsicle sticks, paper clips, plastercine, scissors and pipe cleaners and asked to build a model of the classroom. On Tuesday, when we return to class, groups will finish their models and then collapse them to 2 dimensions. We are, of course,  heading towards projections and understanding distortion.

Laying the Ground Work for Integrative Thinking

One of the challenges of shifting to Inquiry-Based Learning, is contending with students who hold a different model of school in their heads. For many years students have been trained to receive lessons, meet the expectations of success criteria and have teachers plan for them.  Some become uncomfortable  and uncertain when the rules of the game change and behaviours that have served them well in the past are no longer useful.

Given the tremendous success of last year, I was ready to begin this year by teaching the tools of Integrative Thinking right from the start.  It did not take me long to realize, however, that students cannot suddenly begin working in a new model.  Part of the success of Integrative Thinking last year was because it came at the end of the year after students had had extensive experience with Inquiry.  A great deal of trust had been established between students and myself through our year long exploration of what it means to be a learner. A colleague reminded me,  however, of my frustration at the beginning of  the year with the silence of those same children and their reluctance to engage. We had to ease into Inquiry and it took time for students to trust the learning environment we were co-constructing.

I should not have been surprised that when I introduced students to causal modeling,using the "How does homework not get done?" prompt,  they had difficulty moving beyond superficial causation. When I asked them the next day why this task had been so challenging, they suggested that they are not usually asked to think at a deeper level. They did recognize that the tool would be useful for digging deeper; they just didn't really understand how to use it. What I saw was that they didn't have the necessary discussion skills to persist. It was a huge moment of recognition on my part that these children need to learn the language of not merely group work, but collaboration and that they need time and experience forming and expressing complex thoughts.

And so we are beginning at the beginning. I have altered my intended path and am meeting students at their starting point.

I turned to a text that we'd used last year -  Gary Marcus'  Moral Machines.  This is a challenging text, written for adults, so pre-teaching vocabulary was essential.  I picked out words that might be barriers to comprehension and students worked in pairs to determine meaning. Then we read the opening paragraphs. Just as they did last year, students exploded into conversation.

My job at this point was to provide structure for the expressing of opinions so that the entire class's thinking is deepened. On opposite walls in my classroom is a Value Line. On one wall it says, "Strongly Agree". On the other, "Strongly Disagree".  I wrote a statement on the board - machines should be allowed to make life and death decisions for humans - and asked students to place themselves along the line. It is often surprising for students to see where their peers stand on the line. Students then had to explain their positions. As students listened they were free to change positions on the line as long as they could explain why. It was remarkable to watch the transformation of students as for the first time this year they began to think in greater depth and were willing to take the time to find the words to express those thoughts with greater precision.  We actually ran out of time, yet students weren't finished with the topic. I pointed out that they had maintained focus for over an hour. This surprised them.

The next day we had lab time and I introduced students to google docs and the commenting tool. They copied the article into a doc and had time to formalize their thinking in writing.

Now it was time to begin the process of learning to work in collaborative groups.  We used the next section of the article - military robots- as the entry point.

I wrote the following statement on the board: "Military robots should replace humans" and this time handed the value line out on paper. I asked students to mark their spots on the line with the date and explain their stances. We will return to this line frequently over the next few days so that as students construct knowledge they can mark their shifts in thinking. They need to become aware that as they learn, their stances will change. Students shared their positions with partners and then as a class.

Next I had students examine their schema. Students who were in my class last year were familiar with the term, but to others it was new. I was thrilled that last years students remembered not just the term but that drawing upon prior knowledge is useful. After clarification of the term, students took a few minutes to record their schema. Some students had no schema, some had extensive schema. This was difficult for some because not having any schema was stressful. They are so used to having to produce the expected answer so not having schema seemed like a failure. It took time for them to understand that all they are doing is becoming aware of their starting points. We discussed the differences between opinion, fact and the imaginary within their schema. We were ready to form groups.

Helping students understand the value and dynamics of collaborative groups is essential, particularly when there is a wide range of skills, learning and behaviour challenges. Students need to know that when they enter the workforce they will be expected to interact successfully with colleagues and clients and that they will have very little choice over who those people might be.

The first task of the groups was to identify reasons why conflict arises and to plan for how they will handle it. I want to them to understand that conflict is a natural part of of group process but that they have a great deal of control over how those conflicts get resolved.  I can tell that it is early in the year and that strategies for handling conflict are limited. As groups learn to work together they will become better at developing specific strategies.  When we discussed ignoring people who are arguing, some students realized that that is not really a strategy. The conflict won't be resolved and the group goals won't be met.

That process took one 50 minute period. It was the next day that we returned to our topic: military robots. We discussed some of the implications of  military robots and at the end of 5 minutes, all students were curious and were ready to begin finding answers to their questions. They moved to computers, tablets and books to begin constructing knowledge.

After 40 minutes they returned to share what they had learned with their groups. The entire point of this process of course, was not to learn about military robots - that was merely a vehicle for learning collaboration skills. When we discussed how well the groups had functioned, students realized that they were not that good at working with each other:  off-task behaviours, interrupters, lone-wolfs and silent group members were a problem. Each group agreed on a goal for the next day.

Finally I gave students copies of the Learning Skills section of the Ontario report card and asked them to select one statement from the Independent Work section and one from Collaboration and explain how the work they had completed today developed those skills.

Over the next few weeks we will continue to use curriculum as a tool for developing Learning Skills.

Communication, Communication, Yes ... and!

This is a follow-up to a post that hasn't been published yet, but ... oh well.

This year I have become very conscious of just how much we need to break down the processes and skills of communication and collaboration for students. Even in grade 7, many need to be explicitly taught how to listen to ideas and elicit more information about those ideas from their partners. This does not come naturally and many are not even aware that physical stance affects  how they are heard and responded to. It is surprising how many students need to be taught how to engage in face to face conversation.

I see the imperative because I know where we are heading. For students to be able to deal with the challenges of Integrative Thinking, they must first become comfortable and able to articulate and hear each other's complex thoughts. Initially, I thought we would begin Integrative Thinking at the start of year. Now I recognize that foundations need to be set in place before that can begin.

Today we began with my observations about their communications skills based on the work we had conducted last week. (the post that hasn't been published)

I pointed out that as they had become more comfortable working in groups and engaging in learning conversations  several students had begun to change their physical stances. From being collapsed and closed, they were sitting taller and more open. I shared the research about body chemistry and how standing in a more confident position causes reactions within their bodies that allows them feel more confident. I also shared that many were also less tentative with their voices.

We then turned to language and a discussion of words that shut down others and cause them to turn inward and language that keeps people open and continuing to share.  On Saturday I attended Edcamp Design Thinking  and by chance, one of the activities we were asked to do fit perfectly with my grade 7's needs. It required us to change how we use language when sharing ideas.

At Edcamp Design Thinking we stood in small groups and passed an object around the circle. Each time we held it we had to state what the object was using "Yes ... and"  rather than "Yes ... but".  This is the building toy we used.

Person 1: It's the base of a table.
Person 2: Yes and it's a satellite.
Person 3: Yes and it's a tent.
Person 4: Yes and it's a chemical structure.       and so on ... for 5 minutes.

These same toys were in one of the kindergarten rooms and I was able to use them with my 7s. It was great fun and students learned it is possible to advance their own ideas without having to reject the ideas of others. My Educational Assistant observed that it took all the risk away.

Next, we read the opening to our text for the week, "All Summer in a Day" by Ray Bradbury. 

 It had been raining for seven years; thousand upon thousands of days compounded and filled from one end to the other with rain, with the drum and gush of water, with the sweet crystal fall of showers and the concussion of storms so heavy they were tidal waves come over the islands. A thousand forests had been crushed under the rain and grown up a thousand times to be crushed again. And this was the way life was forever on the planet Venus, and this was the schoolroom of the children of the rocket men and women who had come to a raining world to set up civilization and live out their lives.

Students then had to work in partners to discuss and plan how, if they had an unlimited budget, they would film this scene.  As they worked with their partners, they had to use "yes ... and" in response to each other's ideas.

Students had about 30 minutes for this. This was a higher level thinking task. The idea of having to translate text into film was challenging. Having to develop ideas for this while working with a partner even more so.

After students shared their visions, we debriefed:  What was difficult about this task?

1. Inability of 1 person to understand what the other was seeing in his or her head.
2. Having to use yes and.
3. Having to immediately share ideas without having had time to think on one's own.
4. Not understanding the task at first.
5. Finding vocabulary to express ideas.

These insights become the learning points for tomorrow. It is time to pull out 21 Toys and discover just why it is so hard to communicate an idea to another person.

Art as Inquiry - iPads and Apple TV

Our exploration of line continues to make me aware of how much my practice has changed.


In the past I would have taught photo composition, the rule of thirds and asked students to use the rules to compose a photo. This time, I merely asked students to photograph the types of lines we had learned about in and around the school and gave them the challenge of  capturing vertical lines in a way to create a sense of power and height. They organized into small groups and set off. It was fascinating to watch them in action, to hear their discussions about composition and to see the experimentation as they discovered line in the physical world and tried to capture what they saw.  Students were focused and fully engaged during the process.

Today, I asked students to sit with their groups, select their 3 best photos and then - joy of joy - was able to use Apple TV to project the photos onto our Smartboard. Having the right tools at hand makes all the difference to this kind of learning. (and once again I am so grateful to the Ken Spencer Award from the Canadian Educational Association and the technology from the Mind Share Learning award that gave us the tools to work in this way). Students were pleased and impressed by what their peers had accomplished. There were many exceptional compositions and ones that caused us to frequently ask, "How did you do that?" Students became teachers as they explained their shots which led them to ask if they could have time to try out what they had learned from their peers. So off they went - students in charge of their own learning.