Blogging here is more like this …

Image credits: Beehive by TLVshac & a room of one’s own by jspad

Do you like the way I started this post by using one of your trademark writing quirks?

Anyway, it has taken me this long to pull together some bits and pieces since your post that got me thinking. I went and did what I threatened in the comment. I took your techno-ripe idea, ping-ponging its way via the network from California to Pennsylvania to South Australia, twisted it around to suit my Year Six classroom and have a few samples to share.

Check this one first…

The goal was to advertise their upcoming Personal Research Projects (starting up this week!) in one minute with the assistance of four relevant adjectives combined with four skilfully chosen CC images. Some kids did well with their adjective choice, their excellent speaking skills but struggled to break away from the obvious connection with their chosen topic. Not to worry - these are 11 year olds after all. I was happy about the attribution and thought put into this one.

Others were not as fluent at the speaking part but their image choice was positively inspired…

And if you’re wondering what four adjectives would sum up your own fine country from an Aussie child’s perspective, try this ad for the topic of the USA.

So, ken, I did much of what you suggested. In between the demands of your young family, just know that your influence (and so many others that I read and connect with) resonates in my classroom half a world away.

And that still blows me away.

So complete is our acceptance of factory schooling, we consider classes of twenty “small” when, I would argue, even twenty students for an hour is a recipe for poor learning - come on, do the math: one teacher teaching twenty students for an hour equals three minutes of individual attention maximum.

Anyway, over the last three years I have moved from the 2006 report card system where I had to write descriptive comments on each learning area (8 in all) with larger paragraphs for mathematics and English and finish it all off with a 200 word summative comment at the end about attitude to learning, organisational and social skills. This was close to 1000 words of writing for each student and with a class of 30 in most primary classrooms, most teachers really felt the pressure during this part of the year. Parents loved the individualised comments about their children. Feedback indicated that they really appreciated the work put into the reports - but as one teacher said to me, “That just about killed me. My private time was totally consumed by report writing. I’m glad it’s over.”

With the Federal Government putting the pressure on schools late in 2006 and into 2007, we adapted our report cards to be ready if needed for the A to E grading system. We did not end up using them, substituting a continuum system that rated student achievement from Well Below Year Level Achievement (what would become an E) to Outstanding Achievement Above Year Level (A equivalent) and reduced the written component down to two sections for Literacy and Numeracy and the 200 word summative comment. Still a lot of work but the teachers were wilting like in 2006. Interviews were held straight after the report card went home to explain how the middle part of the continuum “Achieving At Year Level” was a good place for their kids to be. Parents still gravitated towards the personalised comments where they looked for context for the achievement system.

For this year, the A to E system was mandated in all South Australian schools. It had to happen.

Teachers met to share work samples and to moderate their expectations for each year level. There was constant referral to the SACSA “Lite” documents to check on the outcomes being assessed. This common understanding was essential to ensure that teacher judgement was consistent across the school as standardised testing does not dominate the Australian education scene (yet, he thinks cynically) to provide that sort of data. We don’t have grading books like a few American edubloggers I have chatted with are compelled to use. We interpret the curriculum and individual schools have to put structures in place to ensure consistency. The writing shrank back to the summative comment only. Grades were inserted for strands within Learning Areas and an overall grade calculated. We also have spent time talking with the kids to ensure that their first experience with grades was not a bad one. Many Aussie kids have formed their perception of grades from American TV shows, their parents’ high school experiences where if you got a C, then you obviously weren’t trying very hard. This is in conflict with the Aussie system where C is year level achievement - to get a higher grade means working above that year level and being on a par with students in the year level above. The romantic concept of “straight A’s” just by working hard and being a “good student” is not going to happen. Multiple A’s on a report might only be achieved by highly gifted students.

Now I don’t see myself as a “professional grader” as Clay indicated but I think he realises that the Australian (and NZ as well) system within primary schools at least is a different beast to the one he is leaving. But interestingly, that despite the fact that Australia ranks well in front of the US in any number of international comparisons, we still keep wanting to adopt the worst ideas from their systems. I think this grading idea is one of them. It’s only a matter of time before this becomes the next logical step for our politicians seeking to “improve” our education system.

Some things haven’t changed like the obligatory racks of cigarettes behind the counter (although it’s getting pretty expensive down under to continue this sort of habit) but everything else is nothing like the petrol station of yesteryear. As well as the restaurant area, there’s a pretty comprehensive mini-supermarket, an ATM and gourmet coffees complete with muffins and other cakes for a longer pitstop. Add in Top 40 music playing through a quality sound system and ambient lighting and it’s obvious that this modern hybrid doesn’t just want you to pay for your petrol and go.

I read a lot about how school is stuck in the industrial age and that teachers from the 50’s would be able to work and operate in today’s classroom because things haven’t changed that much. But I’m not sure I buy that line of thought entirely. Sure, school buildings have been around for a while but the way my classroom has changed is a little bit like the modern petrol station. The technology does make a difference - the interactive whiteboard, the laptops, the wireless connection. There are other differences over my teaching career as well - the shift to inquiry learning as a focus, student voice coming to the fore, the popularity of open space classrooms, team teaching, the decline of open space classrooms, a greater focus on students creating and sharing their own learning, a constructivist curriculum framework that’s lasted more than three years, co-planning units of work, the introduction of standardised testing and the re-introduction of A-E grades. So the classroom, like the modern petrol station, is being asked to do much more than in the past.

I think that having the right facilities does help pave the way towards improved outcomes. The petrol stations decided that the way to improve services was to form partnerships with other franchises, sell a wider variety of products, allow punters easy access to their money and generally create an environment where people willingly part with their money because that environment is right. The modern classroom is reacting to the changes that society is inflicting and imposing and effective teachers are modifying what they offer in order to create the right learning environment. But they operate within financial and facility-based restraints. That means many classrooms might appear at a glance to be throwbacks to an older era but the teacher has to be like the service station proprietor where many services have to be offered to keep the learning moving along.

Anyway, not sure if this metaphor will fly. Feel free to shoot it down or compare and contrast to the classroom you know or have to operate in.

Will the work you do today
Stand the test of time

“Test of Time”, Spy Vs. Spy, 1988.

D’Arcy Norman went very close to pulling the plug and “nuking” his blog. Why?

He explains in an out-of-context quote:

…my blog is strictly just a bunch of words. Just a bunch of talk.

Now the focus of his post was tossing around the “edupunk” theme that seems to be fairly visible in my aggregator but this particular quote combined with his actual willingness to make his blog disappear from the face of the internet really made me think. All of us, typing in our thoughts, ideas and experiences - just a bunch of words?

Are words different to action?

Can words be a result of action?

Sure, some blogs can be a pile of pontification and empty trails heading nowhere. But D’Arcy’s blog is not the sort I would place into that category. His blog and many more that I read are full of action - documentation of action, plans for action, ideas to spark others to action - they are “about standing up and doing things”.

The things that are done are archived for those of us unable to see and experience the first hand action. We can take those words and use them to guide our own actions, to provide us with experiences and case studies and to help form professional and personal relationships with others in totally different spheres of learning. D’Arcy (and many others) help me with all of the above and more often than not put a smile on my face when I need it most. Where else would I have encountered the term “borked” if not for D’Arcy and his “outboard brain”.

Blogging can be a form of “time-capsuling” your work. I want my blog to be more than just words.

Image attribution: ‘i don’t know anything right now‘
http://www.flickr.com/photos/79477064@N00/88887418
by: Diane

Tonight after school, my co-planning partner (Maria, the teacher next door) and I scored well on the free stuff factor. We had signed up for a free workshop for primary school teachers on Coastal Biodiversity held as part of the Geography Teacher’s Association Conference. We thought that we’d get some relevant information and teaching ideas to tie in with our inquiry unit “Can We Really Make A Difference?” that is using the Port River dolphins as a way to cover parts of our Science and SOSE (Studies Of Society & Environment) curriculum. In fact, we were almost considering not turning up as we’ve been pretty busy and have a whole day double class excursion on the go for tomorrow.

But we went.

What did we get?

• A conference goodie bag for no cost that included a couple of sports drink bottles (great for the boys), a coffee mug (teachers can never have enough of these), nice pens, extra stationery, dolphin stickers etc.
• A presentation from Shanelle Palmer, Environmental Education Officer for the Department of Environment and Heritage.
• An excellent draft curriculum pack dealing with the South Australian marine environment that links in beautifully with the way my school delivers learning - tuning in activities, web resources etc.
• Other freebies like environmental posters, eco-icon postcards, a jigsaw puzzle and ….
• … we got to meet Gavin.

Who’s Gavin?

Gavin is a leafy sea dragon, a unique species of sea creature only found here in South Australia. The leafy sea dragon is our official marine emblem. Gavin is the star of an animated film that teaches students (and others) about the marine diversity of this state in an entertaining but informative way. Gavin travels from his home under the jetty at Rapid Bay and travels through the eight identified marine coastal regions, meeting the identified eco-icons along the way. We got to see the film and take our own copy of the DVD with us.

Image screengrab for fair use review purposes.

Real leafy sea dragon image courtesy of SouthOz - http://www.flickr.com/photos/southoz/237624479/

I think Gavin could be very useful in my classroom.

Here’s what I wrote on Sylvia’s post:

I would say from my casual observations from within the system here in South Australia, not many teachers would view themselves as researchers. Part of it is that notion of academia - experts and researchers with doctorates do their detached research from afar and then teachers read their latest findings in books and journals or reserve spots at professional development seminars and sessions to find out what the research says should be happening in their classrooms. The other part that comes into play is that often research is a place where the boundaries are pushed or new territory is explored - many teachers are very wary of labelling their pedagogy as being part of personal action research - to some, they are quite afraid of being labelled experimental by leaders, parents or their peers. And who wants their child in a classroom where they could labelled guinea pigs following some teacher’s wacky passions? For many, the safe route is to follow what is touted as good common practice and not go out too far out alone on a limb. It’s a shame that teachers are not resourced better and actively supported to conduct classroom based research - the chalkface experience is too often over-ridden and disregarded by the higher powers that be.

I know my own doubts about perceiving myself as a teacher/researcher have a lot to with doubting that I have enough method and trust in my observations. I know that many of us subscribe to a research methodology described once by Will Richardson as “throwing ideas against a wall and seeing if it sticks”. Sometimes, in a time poor occupation, that’s as good as we can do.

The other factor that comes into play is how much teachers understand the learning theories that underpin the way they operate with their students. South Australian teachers have been told often that our curriculum framework (SACSA) is based on constructivist principles. Apart from Bill Kerr (who certainly knows his learning theories) I very rarely encounter teachers who can articulate their own understanding of the learning theory they subscribe to. I would include myself in that uncertain category most of the time but blogging has helped me to be more conscious of learning theory and the role it should play in defining professional practice. (I had never heard of constructionism until I crossed paths with Bill and Leigh Blackall.) I have heard Dr. Trudy Sweeney (part of this Learning Technologies grant) on more than one occasion citing research that states that often teachers’ beliefs are not accurately reflected in their practice. So, it means that even if you manage to change the beliefs of a teacher, it does not necessarily mean that the teacher’s practice will change. And conversely, a teacher’s practice can change without any shift in their beliefs.

I like what Sylvia says about educators who choose to blog their ideas and learning:

If you are blogging about your own practice as a classroom teacher, you are already a teacher-researcher. By sharing your voice with the world, you formalize what you know and reflect on your own practices with a “tomorrow mind” that will benefit not only your own students, but also others around the world.

No one is better placed than the teacher to see if learning theories involving students hold water. “Scientific research”as a term is often misused to push certain points of view as Doug Noon highlighted a little while back. I think this is a great chance for our school to benefit from university expertise and I’m hoping that empowered teachers who value their hands on experiences and observations and can connect the dots to the theory is one of the primary outcomes.

We’ve been trying to build a collegial network of users and I’m pushing the line that sharing favourite sites and links is much easier this way in preference to the email out to all staff with the “Have you seen this?” tagline. We’ve started using unique tags to tie all of the web links for our inquiry units together but some teachers’ eyes still glaze over when we mention phrases like “common tags”, “adding fans to your network” and “bundling tags.”

Some are uneasy about the public nature of the service.

“It’s only websites,” supporters say.

But as my colleague and friend, Alex Hayes, has pointed out, a long term or active user of del.icio.us does lay out their entire digital learning history for the world to access.

But the interest is building. Our switched on teacher-librarian has been pushing the social bookmarking barrow enthusiastically and gradually more and more teachers who want to use the internet as a regular part of their learning program are realising that it is impossible to manage 300 + bookmarks in Favorites! But it is weird that a service like del.icio.us which has been around since 2003 is already viewed by many edubloggers as old skool when the vast bulk of teachers are only just becoming aware of the power of this simple but highly effective tool.

It is great to see that Al Upton has restarted blogging with his class under a framework of guidelines developed in consultation with his principal. If you visit his blog, you will notice that the Notice For Closure page has been archived under a tab and you will know be able to re-directed to his new miniLegends blog. Al has kickstarted so much of this conversation that we had to have here in Australia and it is only through boundary pushing innovators like him can we discover what is truly best for those learners under our care.

That’s why innovation is something precious to be guarded within our schools. Without the innovative educators, we would be always camped at the safe no-risk end of learning - innovators are the ones who open up new possibilities and create new entry points for others to follow through. But the concept of “duty of care” is a real one that K-12 educators must deal with. Whenever you invite someone to interact with your learners the potential and expected benefits must carefully weighed against the potential risks. While a lot of American research is cited that dispels a lot of the myths surrounding use of the internet, there is precious little that carries similar weight in an Australian context. So do Aussie educators assume that the North American findings are directly transferable or do we proceed with caution and push for more research to be carried out with our own population?

“Duty of care” assumes that the students under my care will be cared for and not exposed to any risks that a parent or caregiver would consider unreasonable. In the case of using the web, that parental point of view could swing from parents who use heavy filtering, perhaps have deliberately chosen to not to get web access at home to the parents for whom the web is a big mystery and they don’t give much thought to where in cyberspace their children might be because their awareness levels are just so far behind.They just don’t know.

Peter Simmonds, our DECS Learning Technologies Projects manager was an all day attendee on that Friday and he used the Outdoor Education analogy to good effect. To paraphrase his words, outdoor education could potentially be a very risky undertaking (think rock climbing and kayaking as two examples) but the educators involved have developed such well developed protocols and guidelines that the risks have been diminished to their very slightest and are now considered to be safe activities for students to be involved in. Teaching and learning online activities also would benefit from the development of protocols and guidelines that would turn the use of blogs and other online tools into a safe, highly valuable and essential learning practice. Doing so without this happening is like trusting your ropes will hold you down the rockface because of your experience rather than taking the time to check and ensure that the activity will not end in disaster due to human oversight or negligence.

The framework under development and started on May 2 by the gathered group of volunteers is a positive step in the right direction for Australian education.