LSDA Week 3 E-Journal

Changing the educational DNA

Week three of the Leading Schools in the Digital Age course states that it is all about me. The theme for the week is "Re-imagining learning and beginning to re-engineer and change myself". I will be focusing on 'myself' in preparation for my personal action research project over the next few days, so I will focus on the 'Re-imagining learning' section in this reflection. 

A key viewing this week was 21st century pedagogy - Change Educational DNA by Greg Whitby. It discussed the idea that we need to change the educational DNA of teaching and learning and move from a system of knowledge, and transferring that knowledge, to a system where teachers and students are co-constructors of learning and knowledge. 

OK, so if you have been following the chatter amongst educational leaders and change advocates world wide (the Sir Ken R change the educational paradigm is a classic), there is no new statements here. Just an idea of maybe what needs to change, which is sometimes lacking in some of the other discussions, videos and TED Talks. However, the statement of changing DNA is somewhat vague and perplexing. 

I look at this from a scientific perspective (although biology is in no way my strength since my focus is on chemistry and physics), that to change DNA takes an evolutionary step. And if my understanding of evolutionary change is correct, that can take millions of years! So how can this DNA change (which I completely agree needs to happen) take place through the educational sector in the foreseeable future?

Spoiler alert! I may say things here which may be controversial, however I do not intend to offend.

To get started on this change I think we first need to look at the profession itself. In my discussions with members of the educational community around Australia and from my own observations, there are teachers out there who are not passionate about their career. In some cases, the passion may actually still exist but be severely blunted by circumstances. In others, the passion may never have existed. There are educators who have the attitude of 'just let me do my job, give me the paycheck and move out of my way'. They don't care to change, they don't care to look at their own learning or improvement, they just go about their own business with the outlook all about them. 

To change the educational DNA we need people who are genuinely passionate about being educators. People who are willing to work at giving students the best opportunities and make the learning all about the student's ideas, drive and passions. We need people willing to look at traditional teaching methods and apply a full redesign to the old ways (maybe even throw them out completely). We need people who understand this is the information age and the way to get ahead is to learn with the information available and create new information. 

Pre-service education also needs to support the DNA change. I feel my own pre-service training was lacking. Admittedly, I completed my degree eight years ago, but after speaking with current education students I feel nothing much has changed. I believe it is this area which has the greatest potential for beginning the evolutionary change.

To get started with this, expectations need to be raised. First, maybe some form of pre-screening needs to be implemented prior to being accepted into an education course. If we are going to have the best teachers, then we need to make sure the people entering pre-service have that passion and desire, as well as identified potential to be a great teacher. Just meeting academic entry requirements is not enough.

Secondly, why is a 50% pass rate good enough? That means you do not understand 50% of the material. How can that make for excellent teachers? I wouldn't want to go to a doctor who only got 50%, why should we entrust our children's educational future to a professional who only gets 50%?

What I would like to see is a complete overhaul to the system. Maybe a system which reflects technical training like apprenticeships. The current system includes 16 weeks of face-to-face teaching (only 10 weeks in DipEd. courses). How does that count for experience? The true amount of theoretical learning in these courses could be condensed into six to eight months. If pre-service teachers spent the majority of their course based in schools and then came in to uni for their 'theory weeks' they would have a much better understanding of the profession, have experienced a greater range of classes, students and topics and have a greater grasp of real education. 

However, for this to work the mentors and advisers who the students observe and work with need to be the best of the best. They need quality mentors who model great teaching in the digital age. This, coupled with a collaborative learning group (2 - 3 pre-service teachers with a single mentor) where they can all challenge each others thinking and methods, would give even greater strength to the learning.

These are just a few things which can get us on our way to changing the educational DNA. There are many more areas which will also need to change to achieve the goal. However, I can't contemplate covering all of these in this post, nor do I understand them all. I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts.

LSDA Week 2 E-Journal

If this is the learning age, why am I doing this course?

The Leading Schools in the Digital Age (LSDA) course looks to develop me as a educational leader and challenge my thinking in relation to the use of digital technologies in education. I already have some strong views in this area and am confident I am well on my way to incorporating progressive, innovative and meaningful use of technology in my classrooms. However, in my current (and newly appointed) position as eLearning Coordinator at my school, I am wondering how am I going to build the capacity of my colleagues and students to incorporate digital technologies with meaningful outcomes in their classes.

So coming back to the question. It is kind of self explanatory. I regard myself as a life long learner. I love to engage in learning and always look to improve myself as an educator. I do have a mantra that there is always room for improvement (although sometimes this does cause its own problems...). As an educator I believe it is my duty to lead learning by example. Also, at this time my school has delved into the digital age with a policy to have one-to-one devices for all students by 2017. While I have embraced this as a late step forward, others are unsure and need much more support to be able to move forward. I hope this course will develop my skills in understanding their needs for assistance in moving into this direction, and give me ideas and a network which will help meet their needs.

It is an exciting time to be an educator. As a student in the late 90's, the internet was just starting to become useful to help learn new information. It has since evolved into almost a life force of it's own.

The opportunities, information and products available to educators allows them to completely change up their classroom from old school to a space which is engaging, enlightening, collaborative, deep thinking and far reaching. It really does allow us to challenge the status quo. 

However, I feel many teachers do not challenge what they have been doing, often for reasons of fear, workload or just contentment with the way things are. For others, the need for proof before they change is holding many back. 

I agree there is a great need for evidence for including technology into the classroom, however the evidence many seek is not available (or hard to find). I feel this may be because they seek it to support the use of technology without a change in pedagogical practice. This is where statements about 21st Century Learning Design (21CDL) in Fullan's Paper A Rich Seem: How New Pedagogies Find Deeper Learning is quite powerful and resonates with me. 

"21st Century Learning Design, or ‘21CLD, ’ provides small groups of teachers with a set of rubrics for analysing learning activities (which range from traditional lesson plans to the kinds of deep learning tasks described above), and a corresponding set of rubrics for analysing the student work that results. Each rubric provides an explicit definition and concrete indicators of progress on a specific competency, such as problem-solving, knowledge construction or self-regulation. Teachers first work together in groups using the rubrics to code example learning activities and student work samples. Each group then uses the rubrics to analyse and code some of their own learning activities, and then collaboratively redesign those learning activities to remake them into powerful deep learning tasks. Teachers then test out the newly-designed learning tasks with their students, and return to share the impact with the group. The process then becomes a cycle of redesigning learning tasks through ongoing collaboration, and collectively analysing the impact on students’ learning. 21CLD thus provides teachers with a structured path for implementing deep learning tasks"

The idea of giving teachers the tools to reflect on the learning tasks they are using, think outside the box about how the learning tasks can be improved and then collaborate to create new, engaging tasks which enable deep learning is very powerful. If teachers were given this opportunity, they could easily create the evidence they so require, but from a firsthand and immersed perspective. 

This also takes into account the Design Thinking approach. However, teachers need theses tools to progress. 

So, in summary, here's three things I hope this course will help me to achieve:

1. Help my colleagues feel comfortable in questioning the status quo.
2. Develop ways (or gain opportunities) to assist myself and my colleagues to redesign learning tasks for "deep learning".
3. Create an environment where my colleagues feel safe to share success and failure with regard to pedagogical techniques when using digital technology for learning in their classrooms.