The paradox of our age - and our schools

"THE PARADOX OF OUR AGE"

We have bigger houses but smaller families;

more conveniences, but less time;

We have more degrees, but less sense;

more knowledge, but less judgement;

more experts, but more problems;

more medicines, but less healthiness;

We've been all the way to the moon and back,

but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor.

We build more computers to hold more

information to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication;

We have become long on quantity, but short on quality.  These are times of fast foods but slow digestion;    Tall men but short character; Steep profits but shallow relationships.

It's a time when there is much in the window, but nothing in the room.

The 14th Dalai Lama

The above text from the Dalai Lama reminds us of some of the contradictions of our modern society.  Without wishing in any way to deminish the message of this  inspired writing I’d like to suggest my own additions relating to current educational practice  to his powerful prose.

“We have more instruction but less inspiration,

More trivial answers but fewer significant questions,

More rote and recall, less speculation and imagination,

More “tick the box” but less “think outside the square”,

More “rights”, but fewer “responsibilities”,

More edutainment but less engagement,

More talking but less conversation,

More efficiency but less excellence,

In short, we have more teaching but less learning.

It’s time to put the focus back where it should be - on the child. The needs of “the system” should be replaced by the needs of our students.

I began this post by citing the Dalai Lama.  I’ll end  by citing another known for his cosmological musings - Albert Einstein.   “Many of the things you can count, don't count. Many of the things you can't count really count.”

Education counts. Maybe schooling doesn’t.

How to be a great maths teacher #2 - what the research continues to say

There is no shortage of people telling teachers how to improve education.  Sometimes it seems that all the educational experts are either cutting hair or driving taxis - or perhaps in public office.  So it is useful to find clearly written advice based upon educational research and free from economic motivations. The International Academy of Education (IAE) publishes a series of pamphlets that distills educational research into useful summaries of current teaching techniques that have been found to promote student learning.  ”Improving student achievement in mathematics” by Douglas Grouws and Kristin Cebulla provides a succinct  summary of how effective educators  can approach their teaching.

Their research suggests that teachers can improve mathematical learning via;
1.Opportunity to learn
The extent of the students’ opportunity to learn mathematics content bears directly and decisively on student mathematics achievement.  “As might be expected, there is also a positive relationship between total time allocated to mathematics and general mathematics achievement.”  No surprise there I suspect - but this aspect is worth contemplating; “Short class periods in mathematics, instituted for whatever practical or philosophical reason, should be seriously questioned. Of special concern are the 30-35 minute class periods for mathematics being implemented in some middle schools.”
2. Focus on meaning
Focusing instruction on the meaningful development of important mathematical ideas increases the level of student learning.  Teachers should stress “...the mathematical meanings of ideas, including how the idea, concept or skill is connected in multiple ways to other mathematical ideas in a logically consistent and sensible manner.”
3. Learning new concepts and skills while solving problems
Students can learn both concepts and skills by solving problems.  This clearly addresses the “chicken and egg” issue of some teachers - it is NOT necessary to teach specific computation techniques BEFORE addressing real life applications. “There is evidence that students can learn new skills and concepts while they are working out solutions to problems.”  
4. Opportunities for both invention and practice
Giving students both an opportunity to discover and invent new knowledge and an opportunity to practise what they have learned improves student achievement. The research finds that in the USA over 90% of class time is spent on practicing routine procedures.  In Japan about 45% of instructional time is spent practising routine procedures, 15% applying procedures in new situations and 45% inventing new procedures or analysing new situations. Like to predict which system is ranked higher in international comparisons?
5. Openness to student solution methods and student interaction.
Teaching that incorporates students’ intuitive solution methods can increase student learning, especially when combined with opportunities for student interaction and discussion.  Student interaction - sharing their solutions and the how they approached maths tasks - makes for enhanced student learning.  The notion of a good classroom is a quiet classroom with children working in isolation is simply not supported by the research. Students learn better when they interact - which, if the social-constructionist theory of learning is applied,  is what we would expect.
6. Small group learning
Using small groups of students to work on activities, problems and assignments can increase student mathematics achievement.  Again, co-operative methods of teaching featuring both group goals and individual accountability are associated with enhanced student learning. Teachers would be advised to select mathematical tasks that lend themselves to group exploration rather than simply getting students to “work together” on standard tasks.
7. Whole class discussion
Whole class discussion following individual and group work improves student achievement.  The adult in the room need not be the only teacher in the class.
8. Number sense
Teaching mathematics with a focus on number sense encourages students to become problem solvers in a wide variety of situations and to view mathematics as a discipline in which thinking is important.  Number sense - that feeling accomplished people get when they get an answer that “doesn’t look right” - is an important part of developing mathematical skills...and it requires that students are actually thinking about what they are doing, why they are doing it,  and estimating / predicting internally what sort of result would be reasonable.
9. Concrete materials
Long-term use of concrete materials is positively related to increases in student  mathematics achievement and improved attitudes towards mathematics.  So, a warning sign of a less than effective teacher may be the pile of worksheets students are expected to complete. Combine this with a lack of manipulatives or concrete support materials and students have a problem - and it isn’t the mathematics.
10. Students’ use of calculators
Using calculators in the learning of mathematics can result in increased achievement and improved student attitudes.   Study after study support this notion. The use of calculators enhance mathematics learning.  Why? It lets the students think about the mathematics, not the calculation.

Grouws and Cebulla add a caveat to their list of behaviours - the quality of the implementation of the teaching practices listed above greatly impact upon student learning; for example, it is not only whether manipulatives are used but how they are used that determines effectiveness.  

Much of this list will not be new to those with an interest in mathematics education. However, it seems to my casual eye that mathematics classrooms are often still the domain of worksheets with a focus on procedural competence rather than conceptual understanding, places of compliance rather than engagement.  Reading and discussing research findings such as this may help us improve the quality of our mathematics teaching. Reading the original pamphlet would be worthwhile for all teachers with an interest in the area.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An earlier post - “How to be a great mathematics teacher - what the research says” was mined from another pamphlet in the IAE’s “Educational Practice Series”.  The post summarises the content of that pamphlet and provides links to the original source material - which is well worth reading.

Those with an interest in improving mathematical pedagogy might like to read a related post dealing with the work of Alistair McIntosh - Improving numeracy with the 7Cs.

Those with a general interest in mathematics might enjoy the maths page on this site which collects a range of posts dealing with mathematics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Credits: All links go to original sources.

Image: via google images: http://www.kingslangley.ps.education.nsw.gov.au/images/Math-Symbols.jpg

How to be a great mathematics teacher - what the research says

Being a teacher is hard work. Being an effective teacher is even harder. It is surprisingly difficult to find clear advice on how to improve classroom performance - or rather, it is surprisingly difficult to find advice that is pedagogically sound or not advocating some form of educational bandwagon. To the rescue comes a series of pamphlets produced by the International Academy of Education - an organisation with the aim of producing “a syntheses of research on educational topics of international importance”.  Despite the somewhat weighty title of “Effective pedagogy in mathematics” they have produced a highly readable, highly relevant booklet containing some principles of effective mathematics instruction.

According to the authors of the booklet,  Glenda Anthony and Margaret Walshaw, both associate professors at Massey University and also directors of the Centre of Excellence for Research in Mathematics Education, the traits of effective mathematics pedagogy can distilled to;

1. An ethic of care
Caring classroom communities that are focused on mathematical goals help develop students’ mathematical identities and proficiencies. “Teachers who truly care about their students work hard at developing trusting classroom communities.”
2. Arranging for learning
Effective teachers provide students with opportunities to work both independently and collaboratively to make sense of ideas.
3. Building on students' thinking
Effective teachers plan mathematics learning experiences that enable students to build on their existing proficiencies, interests and experiences.
4. Worthwhile mathematical tasks
Effective teachers understand that the tasks and examples they select influence how students come to view, develop, use and make sense of mathematics.
5. Making connections
Effective teachers support students in creating connections between different ways of solving problems, between mathematical representations and topics, and between mathematics and everyday experiences.
6. Assessment for learning
Effective teachers use a range of assessment practices to make students’ thinking visible and to support students’ learning.
7. Mathematical communication
Effective teachers are able to facilitate classroom dialogue that is focused on mathematical argumentation.
8. Mathematical language
Effective teachers shape mathematical language by modelling appropriate terms and communicating their meaning in ways that students understand.
9. Tools and representations
Effective teachers carefully select tools and representations to provide support for students’ thinking.
10. Teacher knowledge
Effective teachers develop and use sound knowledge as a basis for initiating learning and responding to the mathematical needs of all their students.

The booklet is well worth reading and expands upon the extracts presented above.

There is little contained in the publication that will shock educators with an interest in mathematics teaching who have ventured beyond the use of standardised worksheets or textbooks.  However, there are some really reassuring aspects to this booklet. What pleases me most is that an ethic of care is mentioned first - caring for both the student as a learner of mathematics but also as a person.  This reflects the adage I first heard decades ago when I was training; “Students  don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”  Mathematics tends to have a dry and dusty “skills based” reputation so it is reassuring to see such a significant body placing emphasis on the teacher-student relationship as being of fundamental importance to effective teaching.

When we care about our students as much as the subject good things tend to result.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Those with an interest in improving mathematical pedagogy might like to read a related post dealing with the work of Alistair McIntosh - Improving numeracy with the 7Cs.

Those with a general interest in mathematics might enjoy the maths page on this site which collects a range of posts dealing with mathematics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Credits:
All source material is hyperlinked within the post.
Image via google images: http://montymaths.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/20120930-1150041.jpg?w=490

The Poor Scholar's Soliloquy

I came across this piece only recently - despite it first appearing in 1944. Despite its age it seems as modern as tomorrow.  I don’t think any commentary that I could add would improve it. The author, Stephen M. Corey, was Dean of Teachers College, Columbia University.

THE POOR SCHOLAR'S SOLILOQUY

Stephen M. Corey "Childhood Education" - January 1944

No, I'm not very good in school. This is my second year in the seventh grade, and I'm bigger and taller than the other kids. They like me all right, though, even if I don't say much in the classroom, because outside I can tell them how to do a lot of things. They tag me around and that sort of makes up for what goes on in school.

I don't know why the teachers don't like me. They never have very much. Seems like they don't think you know anything unless you can name the books it comes out of. I've got a lot of books in my room at home-books like Popular Science Mechanical Encyclopedia, and the Sears & Wards catalogues--but I don't sit down and read them like they make us do in school. I use my books when I want to find something out, like whenever mom buys anything second-hand I look it up in Sears or Wards first and tell her if she's getting stung or not. I can use the index in a hurry.

In school, though, we've got to learn whatever is in the book and I just can't memorize the stuff. Last year I stayed after school every night for two weeks trying to learn the names of the presidents. Of course, I knew some of them--like Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln, but there must have been thirty altogether, and I never did get them straight. I'm not too sorry though, because the kids who learned the presidents had to turn right around and learn all the vice-presidents. I am taking the seventh grade over, but our teacher this year isn't so interested in the names of the presidents. She has us trying to learn the names of all the great American inventors.

I guess I just can't remember the names in history. Anyway, this year I've been trying to learn about trucks because my uncle owns three, and he says I can drive one when I'm sixteen. I already know the horsepower and number of forward and backward speeds of twenty-six American trucks, some of them Diesels, and I can spot each make a long way off. It's funny how that Diesel works. I started to tell my teacher about it last Wednesday in science class when the pump we were using to make a vacuum in a bell jar got hot, but she, didn't see what a Diesel engine had to do with our experiment on air pressure, so I just kept still. The kids seemed interested though. I took four of them around to my uncle's garage after school, and we saw the mechanic, Gus, tear a big truck Diesel down. Boy does he know his stuff!

I'm not very good in geography either. They call it economic geography this year. We've been studying the imports and exports of Chile all week, but I couldn't tell what they are. Maybe the reason is I had to miss school yesterday because my uncle took me and his big truck down and we brought almost 10 tons of livestock to the Chicago market.

He had told me where we were going, and I had to figure out the highways to take and also the mileage. He didn't do anything but drive and turn where I told him to, Was that fun. I sat with a map in my lap, and told him to turn south, or southeast, or some other direction. We made seven stops, and drove over 500 miles round trip. I'm figuring now what his oil cost, and also the wear and tear on the truck--he calls it depreciation--so we'll know how much we made.

I even write out all the bills and send letters to the farmers about what their pigs and beef cattle brought at the stockyards. I only made three mistakes in 17 letters last time, my aunt said, all commas. She's been through high school and reads them over. I wish I could write school themes that way. The last one I had to write was on, "What a Daffodil Thinks of Spring," and I just couldn't get going.

I don't do very well in school in arithmetic either. Seems I just can't keep my mind on the problems. We had one the other day like this:

If a 57 foot telephone pole falls across a cement highway so that 17 3/6 feet extended from one side and 14 9/17 feet from the other how wide is the highway?

That seemed to me like an awfully silly way to get the width of a highway. I didn't even try to answer it because it didn't say whether the pole had fallen straight across or not.

Even in shop I don't get very good grades. All of us kids made a broom holder and bookend this term, and mine were sloppy. I just couldn't get interested. Mom doesn't use a broom anymore with her vacuum cleaner, and all our books are in a bookcase with glass doors in the living room. Anyway, I wanted to make an end gate for my uncle's trailer, but the shop teacher said that meant using metal and wood both, and I'd have to learn how to work with wood first. I didn't see why, but I kept still and made a tie rack at school and the tail gate after school at my uncle's garage. He said I saved him ten dollars.

Civics is hard for me, too. I've been staying after school trying to learn the "Articles of Confederation" for almost a week, because the teacher said we couldn't be a good citizen unless we did. I really tried, though, because I want to be a good citizen. I did hate to stay after school because a bunch of boys from the south end of town have been cleaning up the old lot across from Taylor's Machine Shop to make a playground out of it for the little kids from the Methodist home. I made the jungle gym from old pipe. We raised enough money collecting scrap this month to build a wire fence clear around the lot.

Dad says I can quit school when I am sixteen, and I am sort of anxious because there are a lot of things I want to learn--and as my uncle says, I'm not getting any younger.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The piece speaks for itself and needs no augmentation from me.  However, I find it saddening that this piece could have been written today.  Has education changed so little over the years?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Credits:
Text = Stephen M. Corey, "Childhood Education" - January 1944

Image =  http://www.maebs.com/articles/Liz_Davies/TreeAcrossTheRoad.jpg

Using formal algorithms too early - it doesn’t compute?

Picture an early childhood or middle  primary mathematics classroom.  What are the students doing? How are they recording their work?  Chances are, if you have a traditional view of effective mathematical teaching,  the students are using some form of formal algorithm.  This has been the case for many many years.  Yet, this entrenched  practice  may be actually reducing student understanding of mathematics.

According to Professor Doug Clarke of the Australian Catholic University, “The teaching of conventional written algorithms in primary schools dominates the (mathematical) curriculum with concerning effects on both student understanding and self-confidence.”  In his paper “Written algorithms in the primary years:Undoing the “good work”  Clarke challenges the effectiveness of teaching formal algorithms to students in the first five years of primary school.  His claim is based upon his research conducted with 572 students over two years.  It found that students who were “taught” mathematics by methods which required them to invent and use their own “informal” methods achieved more highly than those who were taught more formal algorithms. (Follow above link for details.)

Among reasons given for this is the notion that formal written algorithms do not match the way people naturally deal with numbers.  Formal calculations in primary school tend to operate from units, tens and into hundreds and so on - in other words, from right to left. However, people who are efficient users of mental calculations tend to operate from left to right - the opposite direction.  Thus the methods actually used by efficient mental calculators seem significantly different to those taught formally.  The introduction of formal algorithms also tends to encourage students to abandon their own intuitive methods of dealing with numbers - which in some cases has been shown to reduce the mathematical reasoning abilities of students.  (A useful overview of mental calculation and estimation techniques and its relationship to the teaching of formal algorithms can be found here.)


Clarke is not alone in his calls. One researcher has gone so far as to call formal algorithms in grade one and two “harmful” to understanding. Others, such as Kamii and Dominick, conclude that the teaching of algorithms too soon may “unteach” the child’s pre-existing understanding of place value and thus hinder development. *

So when should students be introduced to formal algorithms?  Clarke suggests this is appropriate when students are capable of mentally adding or subtracting two digit numbers.  Approximately 60% of students reach this stage by the end of grade four - but the obvious corollary of this is that nearly 40% of students do not.  The implication of this, if Clarke and the other researchers are correct,  is that large numbers of students are introduced to formal mathematical procedures before they are intellectually ready to benefit from them.

This calls for a wider discussion on the use of formal algorithms in education.  Clarke cites research by Northcote and McIntosh  who found that in one survey of mathematics use by adults only approximately 11% of calculations involved written calculations.  The same survey found that in around 60% of cases of adult mathematics use only a reasonable estimate was required. The conclusion drawn was that “It has become increasingly unusual for standard written algorithms to be used anywhere except in the mathematics classroom.”

The call to delay the teaching of formal algorithms should not be confused with a call to cease teaching methods of calculating or manipulating numbers. The opposite is the case.  This resource by Alistair McIntosh presents several significant methods for developing mental computation skills - and does so in a way that develops an understanding of the number system.

Clarke acknowledges that formal algorithms are have merit. He shares the views of others in observing that they are powerful procedures, particularly when dealing with large numbers, that they can allow for rapid computation, that they provide a written record of computation that enables error tracking (and correction), and that they are easy for teachers to manage. It’s just that they should not be introduced until children have internalised an understanding of numbers, place value and the specific concepts being addressed.  Repeating the information above - for many students, this readiness does not come before the end of grade four.

There is little doubt that these findings might come as a surprise to many parents - and possibly even a number of teachers. After all, according to John Van De Walle, lead author of “Elementary and Middle School Mathematics”, almost every commercial curriculum available teach using formal algorithms. He cites more than a century of tradition plus parental expectations as sources of pressure exerted on teachers to teach formal algorithms earlier than research would advise is appropriate. Van De Walle is a realist.  In view of the fact that students do not live in a vacuum it it probable that they will be exposed to formal algorithms outside of the school environment. His advice is to delay the teaching of formal algorithms in early grades if possible, but acknowledges that community and school expectations may make this difficult.

The issue then becomes, do we ignore the research (and there is much more than mentioned in this post)  and continue to teach “the traditional way”, or do we act upon it - in which case significant change is required in many classrooms?

A change of context might be useful here  - would we consult a doctor using established techniques practiced for over a century, or would we choose a doctor using newer treatments that have been found to be more effective?  When presented in medical terms  I suspect most would support research based practice. It is not so clear how people will respond to essentially the same issue when based in the educational realm.


Credits & references
Image:

http://extend.schoolwires.com/clipartgallery/images/19142777.jpg

Most sources cited in this post have an active link to the source. The exceptions are:

* Kamii & Dominick, 1997, “To teach or not to teach algorithms”, Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, vol 16, issue 1, 1977. (I have been unable to source a free electronic copy of this source - hence no direct link).

Van De Walle et al, 2010, “Elementary & Middle School Mathematics”, Pearson, Boston

Schools - Formula 1s or 4X4s?

I’ve been thinking / reading about educational reform lately. What struck me was how little things have really changed over the course of my career.   With the exception of a few islands of excellence, many of the classrooms that I encounter on school visits are predictably generic – and demonstrate pedagogy enshrined in practice now for generations.  In fact, many of the people who helped train me would be able to dust themselves off (literally in some cases) and step into the role of a current teacher easily – despite being out of the classroom for decades.

How can this be? How is it possible that the technological advances in recent years have not transformed education?  Surely, when one considers the explosion of digital technology, the growth of the Internet and the transformation of society in general, schools surely must have changed?  Yet it is still possible to visit schools that almost seem to pride themselves on resisting genuine educational innovation.  Some schools use a shield of “educational rigor” to disguise the rigor mortis that defines their programs.

It occurs to me that schools are more like Formula 1 teams than Four Wheel Drivers. By this I mean that school teachers and administrators are hard working and dedicated people working towards a common goal – they pour their energy into their jobs and do so with great skill and commitment.  The same could be said for the Formula 1 teams.  Their goal is set – and it has been for years; to make their car go faster, to go from start to finish in the shortest amount of time possible.  They do this by making minute adjustments to their car – retuning the engine, changing tyre composition, modifying the aerodynamics  and generally tweaking the car to maximise performance.  The teams have been going to essentially the same tracks for years and years; season after season, lap after lap,  with one aim – to help get the driver from point A to point B faster than anyone else.

Contrast this approach with that of the four wheel drive enthusiast. The 4x4 car is well maintained and in good order.  Great care and concern is taken to ensure mechanical reliability. The difference is not in attention to detail – the difference is the destination.  The 4x4 driver is likely to try to go to new places by new routes – even if there is only a track rather than a road – and sometimes not even a track.  The fact that the journey may be over new or rarely explored territory adds to the allure of the trip. Being “better” simply has no relevance in this context.

In short, the 4x4 driver thinks about the destination while the Formula 1 team thinks about the process.
Our schools are now the equivalent of Formula 1 pit-crews  – hard working,  skilled, focused and putting large amounts of effort into making minor revisions that produce very small advances – if in fact they prove to be effective at all. The other parallel that strikes me is that Formula 1 cars are irrelevant in any other situation. You cannot take them on “the open road”, you couldn’t use them to get the shopping, or transport the family or do any of the other required functions of cars in the “real world”.  How many of our educational practices are limited in relevance to only the school environment?  If we are to break from the unproductive “reform” practices maybe we need to be more like the 4x4 drivers – work out where we really want to go and then do what it takes to make that happen.  

We need to have a serious look at the curriculum – not just in the sense that we re-badge or reorganise it. What do our students really need?  What is the best way we can provide it for them? What activities and projects will enable them to acquire the skills necessary for modern life and keep them engaged in the process?  How can we change education from something we do to students to something we do with them? What needs to change at the class, school and system level to enable this to happen?
There are many educational issues  that would benefit from genuine consideration and action including;

• ·         What do our students want from their schools?
• ·         What are we trying to achieve – in specific terms – with our students?
• ·         What content should we have in the school curriculum?
• ·         How do engage students in the educational process?
• ·         How do we use ICT effectively in the classroom?
• ·         How relevant is what we teach to our students?
• ·         Is the curriculum ever-expanding like the universe –  or can we acknowledge that students can learn some things elsewhere and hence omit some aspects. If so, what can we cease to teach?
• ·         What is the purpose and impact of formalised testing?
• ·         How can we embed a growth mindset into students,  staff...and “the system?”

Of course, governments and education departments all over the globe have been “reforming” education for decades.  But, to return to my earlier metaphor, the mind set in use has been that of the Formula 1 team – “We already know the objective, let’s improve the process”.    However, there are other groups that have taken the 4x4 approach – and their alternatives to vanilla flavoured education are freely available on the labyrinth of the Internet.

To continue the motoring metaphor, before commencing any journey it helps to have a map so you can choose the terrain over which you want to travel.   The equivalent to that might be this site -   the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Today  and the associated PDFs.  The document isn’t exactly a road map – but it might help you work out where you might like to go – and provide some of the insights that might help you get there.



Photo credits:
4x4 on beach
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/images/parks/touroperators/profiles/versions/BigRiverEnvironmntlSvcesLg.jpg

How to win the "best schools" competition - don't play the game!

A week ago my knowledge of the education system of Finland was, to be honest,  almost non-existent.   I knew that they were consistently ranked number one of all “Western” countries in PISA testing but had no idea how they did it.  Then, last weekend, I attended a keynote address by Professor Teemu Leinonen, Professor of New Media Design and Learning at the Media Lab of Aalto University in Helsinki.   Teemu informed the audience that Finland is the source country of Nokia, of Linux, and perhaps even more importantly, the mobile app “Angry Birds”.  Almost as an aside he mentioned that Finland does not have any formal systemic educational testing until the final year of schooling.

My ears picked up – no formal testing?

Professor Leinonen indicated that there was evaluation – but this was left to the teachers for the purpose of assisting their teaching,  not for any evaluation or ranking of students or teachers or schools.  So here is a country with essentially no formal testing until the final year of schooling that is consistently outperforming every country in the Western world that is test driven.  This flies counter to one of the major pillars of conservative school reformists and system administrators in other parts of the world.   It should be said that educators such as Alfie Kohn have been lamenting the revered status of test scores for many years now – but sometimes it seems he is an almost lone voice against  a massed choir of test advocates.  Some further investigation was called for.

As it happened American  broadcaster and blogger David Sirota recently interviewed Harvard Professor Dr. Tony Wagner on his radio program – which, thanks to the wonders of the internet, is accessible to anyone in the world.  Wagner is the  the author of a book with the unwieldy title of “The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don’t Teach the New Survival Skills our Children Need” .  He is also the narrator of the recently produced documentary “The Finland Phenomenon: Inside the world’s most surprising school system”.  In the interview Wagner confirms Leinonen’s comments and makes some further observations:

·         There is no “high stakes” testing in schools in Finland.

·         Teachers must have a Masters degree.

·         Teaching is highly esteemed – only 10% of initial applicants make it through to teach in a classroom.

·         Teachers work collaboratively  - Wagner states that “...isolation is the enemy of innovation and improvement.”

·         The curriculum is designed to promote thinking – not memorisation.

·         The performance difference between the top and bottom schools in Finland is only 4%.

Much of the interview is spent addressing (and effectively debunking) the usual claims of “you can’t compare us to Finland...”

It is dangerous to make interpretations based on another’s observations – but, whilst acknowledging this,  there seem to be a number of implications for other education systems in the Finnish experience.     Obviously, large credit for the success of the Finish education system must go to the selection, preparation and performance of the teachers – and the collaboration embedded in their system. 

However, the absence of formal testing must be considered as a factor in their success.  Not only would this approach “free up” time for genuine teaching, but it would also remove the mindset of scores and test performance as indicators of student learning.  Mastery of concepts when performing authentic tasks in meaningful contexts would become the basis for student development.  We know that summative testing does not lead to sustained improvement in student performance – rather than cite Alfie Kohn yet again I will cite Dr. Dylan William of the University of London who claims that 4000 studies have confirmed that informative feedback consistently produces better student learning than  summative assessment – 4000 studies.  (To investigate this further click here to access the  Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Today background document.   This should be compulsory reading for anyone involved in education.  The figure used here can be found on page 25.) 

As has been said, rather colourfully, by others, “You don’t fatten a pig by weighing it.”  It would appear that, on the basis of Williams’s research and the Finnish experience,  if we want to improve our schools ... we need to concentrate on teaching well rather than to the test.

Sirota’s blog provides a summary of the interview here   and also link to the relevant audio archive.     (The interview is towards the end of the show – I recommend downloading the mp3 file rather than listening online, then use the slider to fast forward to the 24:03 mark and listen from there.  Don’t be put off by a section in the middle where Sirota advertises the next guest – he does return to the Wagner interview.)



Credits:

Flag graphic:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/flags/large/fi-lgflag.gif

TARGETS - School reform in three minutes

My marathon is over....
I have been privileged of late to have time to read; to read, to watch, to listen – and to think. Much of this precious time has been has been spent devouring material relating to school reform and exploring one simple question - how do we respond to the challenges and opportunities provided by the digital revolution to improve our schools? The concept of “school” as we know it is well over a century old – and was obviously developed before the digital revolution. The model of teacher / text book as the sole source of knowledge available to students is clearly no longer applicable – at any grade level. So how can schools respond appropriately to the new realities?
There is an abundance of material in the field – much of it very good; some based on research, some based on values, some based on bias ... and some seemingly not based on anything other than opinion or tradition. Sorting the “fact from the fiction” has taken time and the result, on one level at least, is disappointing. Predictably, there are no easy answers, there are no “silver bullets” – the area is simply too complex. However, there are significant and realistic principles for school reform that have been found to engage students, which are relevant to them and which also enable schools to meet the requirements and expectations of society in general. The problem is not that there are no worthy approaches, the problem is just the opposite – there are so many worthy ideas that will improve our schools.
How can the sheer volume of material relating to school reform be distilled into a “bite sized” chunk that educators can remember – and then apply? That was the task I set myself – to condense the research into a simple, easily remembered model that encapsulates progressive approaches to schooling. The result is TARGETS – presented here in a video of just under three minutes. It may take three minutes to view – but will take the rest of my career to implement. The hope is that educators can remember the mnemonic model, implement the principles contained – and reform education in the process.


TARGETS is a mnemonic that highlights important overarching principles that can guide school reform. The model is mine – but the research, reflection, wisdom and insight upon which it is based comes from the global community of educators. The tail end of the TARGETS video acknowledges some of the major influences on the development of the TARGETS model. All are easily accessible on the internet (indeed, that was one of the criteria for my research). Those wishing to develop their own understandings further (or perhaps see why the nominated initiatives are included) would be well advised to consult  "The MILE guide" – Parnership for 21st Century Skills and Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Today – but all the identified influencers are worthy of genuine study.
So, the TARGETS model has been developed. Now comes the task of applying the model in “the real world”.
My marathon has just begun...

Source material:
MILE guide: http://www.p21.org/documents/MILE_Guide_091101.pdf
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow – Today: http://ali.apple.com/acot2/global/files/ACOT2_Background.pdf
TARGETS video = original. Those wanting a static or portable version of the TARGETS presentation should click here.