Bloom's Taxonomy - Still Relevant or Just Redundant?

Geriatric Guidance

It is amazing to me how pervasive Bloom's Taxonomy (1956) remains, despite its geriatric credentials. In particular advocates of TEL (Technology Enhanced Learning) are often the most ecstatic about it, keen to categorise many of the most ubiquitous digital tools under it's reassuring tiers – well the tiers of its ‘cognitive domain’ anyway, something that is very well critiqued by Tom Woodward over at this post on his blog.

This may come as a surprise to many, but despite its 'common sensibility' Bloom’s Taxonomy was and is purely theoretical, without basis in cognitive research (Ritchhart et al, 2011).

The idea that thinking is sequential or hierarchical is highly questionable (Marzano, 2000), but nevertheless Bloom's categories capture types of mental activity that are embraced (rightly or wrongly) by many practitioners, and are therefore, it could be argued, useful as a starting point for thinking about thinking.

Anderson and Krathwohl’s revisions (2001), emphasise the importance of creativity, although understanding was still undervalued.

Understanding Understanding

Understanding is a very deep, complex endeavour, and not in any way a lower-order skill as the revised taxonomy implies (Blythe & Associates, 1998; EO Keene, 2008; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

Cognitive research indicates that understanding is not a precursor to application, analysis, evaluating, and creating but a result of it (Wiske, 1997). Thomas and Seely Brown (2009) emphasise this idea, seeing ‘learning as reflecting, learning as making, and learning as becoming’ with creative play and improvisation as essential experiences – the kinds of experiences of ‘messing about, and geeking out’ described by Ito et al (2008). Wagner (2012) considers the unique motivation generated by creating as ‘the source of all good learning’, concluding that intrinsic motivation is fuelled by playing (experimenting), purpose (wanting to make a difference), and passion (devoting yourself to something you find deeply meaningful). Creating is not a single direct act but a compilation of activities and associated thinking. Decisions are made and problems are solved as part of this process. Ideas are tested, results analysed, prior learning brought to bear, and ideas synthesised.

With computers, the act of creating has never been more accessible – almost anything is potentially ‘buildable’ on a computer, and if it’s buildable, it becomes thinkable, discussable, and ultimately, learnable (TEL Report, 2012). Robinson (2009) makes the point that

"digital technologies are now putting in the hands of millions of people everywhere, unprecedented tools for creativity and sound, in design, in sciences and in the arts (p 205).” 

Creativity is something that digital technologies excel at facilitating - people learn best when they are making things, and sharing what they’ve made with each other. Making something produces something to talk about, reflect upon, and ultimately learn with. Making is an effective way of learning – or as Luckin et al in the Nesta report (2012) neatly summarise, “mending, mashing, and making with digital tools (p 59)”, using suitable personal devices and flexible web tools to achieve clearly articulated goals.

Considering the high regard Bloom’s retains in the estimation of many educators, it could be argued that rather than rejecting it; (say in favour of simpler and more academically robust paradigms like deep and surface learning) that the process of learning in the 21st Century be better represented by ‘flipping’ Bloom’s (Shelley Wright); one that views learning as the process of joining a community of practice reverses this pattern and allows students to engage in “learning to be” (Brown & Adler, 2008) even as they are mastering the content of a discipline. This encourages the practice of ‘productive inquiry’ (Dewey, 1944) the process of seeking knowledge only as and when it is needed, in order to carry out a particular task.

Flipping Bloom’s [Revised] Taxonomy (Shelley Wright)

Transformative Teaching and Transformative Tools

The point is, education is (or at least, should be) evolving –  new ways of describing learning are just another part of this ancient process. From flint and stone, to chalk and board, to pen and paper, to screens and cursors – excellent, experienced teachers have always been effective at utilising the most appropriate tools they have access to, to transform teaching and learning. Yes, sure, a piece of chalk and a black board can be transformative in the grip of a great teacher—but to cling to those tools when more powerful tools exist is a wasted opportunity, like walking when you can fly. Teachers need to move away from the traditional methods of teaching and utilise a wider variety of techniques, the best tools, digital tools, for their students to build their own understanding through real world applications and interactions with their peers.

“To be productive contributors to society in our 21st century, you need to be able to quickly learn the core content of a field of knowledge while also mastering a broad portfolio of essentials in learning, innovation, technology, and career skills needed for work and life.” (Trilling & Fadel, 2009, p 16)

Teachers have always needed to prepare students to be creative and innovative within professions that do not yet exist, for products that have not yet been invented, but the sheer breath of these experiences are growing exponentially. Clinging to obsolete paradigms makes no sense in a century that offers so much more than we've ever had access to before.

So next time you see another set of digital tools organised around the redundant, discredited, Bloom's hierarchy, think before you link. Aren't there better ways to structure our thinking? I think so.

Digital Literacy 'Coaches' – What Do We Do?

An existentialist consideration of the role of a 'tech integrator'*.

I'm a 'Digital Literacy Coach' (DLC), a 'pedagogical technologist' (Woo, 2012) would probably be a more accurate description; that is a pedagogical coach who specialises in digital technologies. We're a rare, but fast growing breed in any TELE (technology enhanced learning environment) where the tech in question is digital, ie screens, because let's face it, all teaching environments are enhanced by some kind of technology even if it's just paper and pen/cil.

I commonly find myself on the receiving end of a blank faces; uncomprehending, incredulous, somewhat vacuous expression when I give an answer like this. Especially if the person in question is a student, or a parent. Something like,

You're a ... pedagogicawhat?

"A what?" "so, ... what do you do?"

So, 4 years of research, and 1 Master's degree later, here it is. My answer.

Studies (McGarr & McDonagh, 2013) indicate that for many schools, the provision of even one person who has this kind of role is rare. Unfortunately, it is more common to commit vast amounts of expenditure on ICTs, while skimping on financing the expertise that would enable teachers to make effective use of them. If a choice has to be made, it would be better to purchase less equipment and instead utilise the released funds to employ at least one skilled facilitator, a DLC. Without this kind of investment, expensive hardware will most likely languish in cupboards (Nesta report, 2012).

Providing technical skills training to teachers in the use of technology is not enough (Ciampa & Gallagher, 2013) and teaching skills in isolation does little to help teachers develop knowledge about: how to use technology to teach content in differentiated ways according to students' learning needs (TPK); how technology can be used to support the learning of specific curriculum content (TCK); or how to help students meet particular curriculum content standards while using technologies appropriately (TPACK) in their learning (Harris et al 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006); this is where having a dedicated ‘coach’ is essential.

Teachers need professional development in the pedagogical application of skills to improve teaching and learning (Carlson and Gadio, 2002). One of the most effective ways to help teachers take advantage of, and integrate technology is to provide ‘situated’ professional development through the provision of dedicated technology facilitators. These are known by many titles, eg DLCs, ICT Coordinators, Tech Integrators; all of which place far too much emphasis on the digital-technological for my liking. I think it is perhaps better to described the DLC role as that of a pedagogical coach, but one who has a profound understanding of the affordances of digital technologies. The emphasis being, first and foremost, on the pedagogical aspect of the role, the technology supports pedagogy - not the other way round. This is why, despite the multiplicity of syllables, I feel the best description of this role is that of a ‘Pedagogical Technologist’ (Woo, 2012).

These are dedicated teachers who support individualised (Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009) authentic technology integration; mentoring; 'just-in-time' support that addresses teachers' needs; individualised instruction; observation of technology integration in practice (or what I prefer to call FOCUS lessons), and self-directed learning (Jacobsen 2001; 2002). This approach goes beyond skill centred strategies (teaching the use of tools) and emphasises the importance of helping teachers develop and use technology to teach curriculum content using specific pedagogical approaches that support successful technology-enhanced teaching and learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Perhaps another question we should ask is, what happens if you NOT have a DLC? Fullan and Donnelly answer this question nicely:

"Study after study has concluded that the impact of digital technology has been stifled when there is no emphasis on the pedagogy of the application of technology as used in the classroom. this phenomenon has been recently documented by steven Higgins et al. in a large meta–analytical study on digital learning. When teachers are not taught how to use an innovation, how to adapt to the model, and provided with on–going support, they revert to their traditional behaviours and practices. And, if professional development is stacked at initial launch, it risks neglecting the need for continuous reinforcement and upgrading." (p19)

So DLCs emphasise pedagogical application of technology. And how do DLCs do this? Well, they... 

Synthesise, problem solve, filter... 

Key to this role is synthesis. A DLC must consider the curricular goals, the talents and experiences of the team they are working with, the potential connections (support, reinforcement, or duplication) of related areas and skills, and how best to determine priorities. Tsai & Chai (2012) describe this problem solving capacity in terms of ‘design thinking’, where the ability to “re-organise or create learning materials and activities” and adapt these accordingly (ibid, p 1058) is seen as necessary to overcome a ‘third-order’ barrier of a lack of ‘design thinking’.  The DLC also reviews recent practice and tries to anticipate how best to implement future projects. As they begin to develop new visions, communicate them to colleagues, and contemplate how to realise these innovations, they enter the realms of strategic leadership and creativity within the profession (Gardner, 2006). Synthesising the current state of technological knowledge, incorporating new findings, and delineating new dilemmas are critical to the work of any DLC who wishes to remain current and relevant.

This role as filter is particularly important given the phenomenal proliferation of digital tools—on a literally daily basis, more tools with funky and not so funky names emerge into a market place already filled to overflowing with a veritable cornucopia of competitors. The DLC is all that stands between the teacher and a tsunami wave of digital applications, utilities and all sorts of 'Apps' boasting their pixelated promises to 'save you time' etc.  Neither can these just be ignored, as, not unlike the prospectors of old, sometimes lying in the sludge of similarity is the odd golden nugget of greatness. Yes, Apps like DoodleCast Pro, I'm looking at you. The DLC is the prospector who wades through the mediocre with filters of failure, seeking to route out all except the most worthy, which can then be brought back triumphantly and with considerable excitement to a, maybe not so interested team of teachers. Yet.

A ‘low power distance’ (Hofstede et al, 1991) is a crucial aspect of these roles, within a loose, decentralised hierarchy, where teachers are colleagues, not subordinates. A high degree of technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) is at the heart of this role—an understanding of how teaching and learning can change, when particular technologies [tools] are used effectively. This includes knowing the ‘pedagogical affordances and constraints’ of a range of technological tools as they relate to various disciplines with “developmentally appropriate pedagogical designs and strategies (ibid).”

Design (interventions)

Interventions significantly influenced by the need to use, "small wins to ignite joy, engagement and creativity at work (Amabile & Kramer, 2011).” Helping teachers making even small progress in meaningful work is a powerful stimulant to inspiring them to want to do more. If people are involved in meaningful work, and if they feel capable, and if they are helped to make even small progress, they become more motivated and ready for the next challenge (Fullan, 2013).

All interventions should incorporate three essential elements (Rodríguez et al, 2011) they should be first and foremost pedagogically centred, collaboratively designed, and expected to result in transference.

A focus on pedagogy has been shown to be effective in ‘freeing’ the practitioner from the myth that they need to be the ‘tech expert’ in the room, instead focusing on their classroom management skills, seeing technical “pitfalls as teachable moments” (Steve, 2011, p 16). This pedagogic model requires the definition and design of tasks for teachers and students, supported by ICTs. The interventions are how the pedagogic model is adopted, leading towards “autonomous implementation” (Rodríguez et al, 2011, p 84).  They are composed of planned activities, such as training sessions for teachers, practical experiences, and classroom observations (Rodríguez et al, 2010). In addition to this, during the intervention, the DLC continually monitors and evaluates progress in order to assess the suitability and efficacy of implementation and to determine the extent to which the pedagogical model is actually being adopted (Wagner et al, 2005). This is expected to lead to arguably the purpose of the entire initiative - transference, teachers who have adopted these practices to the point where they are intrinsic and habitual, where the vast majority teachers effectively and faithfully “carry out the intervention” (Rodríguez 2008).

Champion

None of these attributes count for anything unless the ‘coach’ or ‘facilitator’ is a “pedagogical leader and champion” (McGarr & McDonagh, 2013)—a “charismatic individual who throws his or her weight behind an innovation, thus over-coming indifference or resistance... (Stuart et al, 2009, p 734).” These champions are “the individuals who emerge to take creative ideas […] and bring them to life” who “actively and enthusiastically promote the innovation, building support, overcoming resistance, and ensuring that the innovation is implemented (Howell & Higgins, 1990, p 40).” Confidence, persistence, energy and risk-taking are key characteristics (ibid). Champions can be distinguished from non-champions because they can communicate a clear vision, display enthusiasm, demonstrate commitment and involve others in supporting innovation (ibid). Champions are also an important part of the innovation process in an organisation (ibid; Rogers, 2003), and are “especially important in the implementation of new technology (p 3).” Loucks & Zacchei (1983) describe these facilitators as “cheerleaders” (p 29); building commitment early and maintaining it through constant encouragement; as ‘linkers’, bringing in outside expertise and ideas—linking resources and expertise; and trouble-shooters, helping teachers solve problems.

But for how long? Role obsolescence

The long-term viability of the role of the DLC needs to be considered. This marks my fourth year, and it is important to be wary of allowing the success of a TEL initiative to be dependent on one person’s expertise and determination to succeed. Certainly, in the earliest phase of implementation of a TEL model the need for a full time DLC is necessary, but the efficacy of this initiative will only truly be realised when, in effect, every teacher is a ‘pedagogical champion’, effectively rendering the role of the DLC obsolete. Implementation of change takes at least two years (Fullan, 1991), even then, with an infrastructure in place, it takes several years of effort before teachers start using ICT intensively in preparing and conducting their teaching activities (Feldman et al, 1999; Hakkarainen et al, 2003); only then can we consider that change has really become implemented, that it has ‘gone viral’, that there has been transference.

If we're doing our jobs properly, surely we should be aiming for obsolescence, to coach every teacher and student into a similar sense of tech capacity and familiarity as we have, to effectively make each one a 'mini me'—after all what originally qualified the teacher who became a DLC for this role, other than a profound sense of excitement about the potential of digital technologies to amplify and transform learning and teaching. 

By expanding the role of all of teachers who we have discovered, or successfully enabled, or even 'converted' to that of a ‘tech mentor’ or tech enthusiast' we can distribute this kind of coaching more effectively, thinner but wider. These teachers can work closely with a DLC to pilot pedagogically focused use of ICTs in innovative ways. If successful, these are shared with the team with the prospect of grade wide adoption and development. 

More is more

These roles, these 'tech mentors and enthusiasts' could 'go viral', they could conceivably evolve into many part-time DLCs at each grade level, in every department, lots of 'mini DLCs' everywhere, the more there are, the less 'non-contact' time they would need, until … well, until every teacher, every student is, in effect, a digital literacy coach. Reaching this utopian ideal would be the realisation of  “autonomous implementation”, the transference, described by Rodríguez et al, (2011; 2008). Where teachers have adopted these practices to the point where they are "intrinsic and habitual".

This state would not be sustainable without an inter-disciplinary, cross phase, school-wide network of DLCs could continue, develop and facilitate professional learning through a collaborative, peer-mentoring programme (Glazer et al, 2009). One situated in the practice of a teacher, familiar with the curricular content, and the everyday stresses and strains of classroom practice that a full time DLC is not, no matter how sympathetic they might be.

Of course that begs the question of who would/could co-ordinate, guide, support this network of pedagogical technologist, who would coach the coaches? Probably someone who already has a decade or two or more of experience with pedagogical technology, hmm, looks we're going to need a new name.

So, obsolescence? Bring it on. I look forward it.

*Or Digital Literacy Coach, ICT Coordinator, Technology Coordinator, Technology Facilitator, Pedagogical Technologist ... there are more... 

References

Amabile T and Kramer S (2011). The progress principle: using small wins to ignite joy, engagement and creativity at work. Boston: Harvard business review press.

Carlson S and Gadio C T (2002). Teacher professional development in the use of technology. Technologies for Education, 118-132.

Ciampa K and Gallagher T L (2013). Professional learning to support elementary teachers’ use of the iPod Touch in the classroom, Professional Development in Education, DOI:10.1080/19415257.2012.749802

Fullan M (2013). Stratosphere: integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Don Mills, Ont.: Pearson.

Fullan M & Donnelly K (2013). Alive in the swamp, assessing digital innovations in education. London: Nesta. Available online: www. nesta. org. uk/library/documents/Alive_in_the_Swamp. pdf.

Gardner H (2006). Five Minds For The Future. Harvard Business Press.

Harris J, Mishra P, and Koehler M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.

Hixon E and Buckenmeyer J (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools: Implications for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130-146.

Hofstede G, Hofstede G J, and Minkov M (1991). Cultures and organizations. London: McGraw-Hill.

Jacobsen D M (2001). Building different bridges: technology integration, engaged student learning, and new approaches to professional development. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 10 April, Seattle, WA.

Jacobsen D M (2002). Building different bridges two: a case study of transformative professional development for student learning with technology. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1 April, New Orleans, LA.

Koehler M J and Mishra P (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Luckin R, Bligh B, Manches A, Ainsworth S, Crook C and Noss R (November 2012). Decoding Learning: The Proof, Promise and Potential of digital education. Online. Retrieved 18 November, 2012, from http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/DecodingLearningReport.pdf 

McGarr O and McDonagh A (2013). Examining the role of the ICT coordinator in Irish post-primary schools, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, DOI:10.1080/1475939X.2012.755132

Mishra P and Koehler M J (2006). ‘Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge’, Teachers College Record 108 (6) pp. 1017– 1054.

Rodríguez P, Nussbaum M, and Dombrovskaia L (2011). Evolutionary development: a model for the design, implementation, and evaluation of ICT for education programmes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(2), 81-98.

Steve V (2011). Young Canadians in a Wired World – Phase III: Teachers’ Perspectives (Ottawa: Media Awareness Network, 1)

Tsai C C, & Chai C S (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Building the ICT capacity of the next generation of teachers in Asia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057-1060. 

Wagner D A, Day B, James T, Kozma R B, Miller J and Unwin T (2005). Monitoring and Evaluation of ICT in Education Projects: A Handbook for Developing Countries. ICT and Education Series. infoDev/World Bank, Washington, DC. 

Woo D J (2012, May). No Lone Rangers: Pedagogical Technologists’ Mutualistic Relationships in Schools. In E-Learning in a changing landscape of emerging technologies and pedagogies.

Transforming Assessment for/and/of Learning

Stop Marking and Start Giving Feedback

Here's a magnificent example of how assessment can be transformed by the effective use of digital technologies.

Replace, Amplify or Transform - RAT

It is so easy for even powerful applications of ICT to be little more than replacement for traditional tools and methods, maybe amplified—by that I mean, maybe there are benefits in terms of amplification, like speed, or efficacy, maybe the activity is more motivating, maybe it uses less paper, but is it really changing learning; or the kinds of teaching you can do?

If not, then it's not transformative, and it's not what I am aiming to see in the classrooms of the teachers I 'coach'.

So, one of our Grade 5 teachers is transforming formative assessment, and he's doing it by cleverly combining two powerful tools, in a synergetic way that amplifies the potential and possibilities of both, here using Google Doc comments and QuickTime screen recording.

Now he's been using screen recording for some time to give feedback to his students, and then he started experimenting with getting his students to use the same method to create a 'learning talk' to explain the rational behind their writing choices for him, great, but the problem with that is you now have 22 x 2-3 minute videos to 'mark' and the problem with video compared to text, is you can really 'skim' it, and annotating it? Not easy, certainly not as easy as paper.

In short video is great for pushing content to kids, but it sucks for pulling content from kids.

Unless… you get the kids to use each other as resources, what I call P2P (peer to peer), what Dylan William calls 'Students as resources for one another'.

So, have a look at this video, by an 'ordinary' student, on an 'ordinary' day in an 'ordinary' classroom at UWCSEA, but one who is transforming learning of her peers.

SAMMS

It's worth pointing out exactly why this is transformative, because it leverages 4 out of the 5 unique affordances of ICTs, that I call 'SAMMS'; this work is:

Situated - This student can start the work at school, continue at home, and seamlessly return to at school no problem, any space, any place, any time, that suits her.

Multimodal - Text and speech = win win.

Mutable - the workload implications of acting on feedback are minimised compared to paper. Feedback annotation on paper would effectively require the student to start again and rewrite the entire thing from scratch - the my ability of the screen mean edits and revisions can be made quickly and simply, and supported by supportive proof-reading tools.

Social - This document has effectively become a micro-community, two students and one teacher, but it's not one way. Following the feedback, any of the 3 parties involved can pitch in with comments to clarify, redirect, reinforce, resolve… Invite others to join in? the possibilities are endless!

So Tech is JUST another tool? Really?

'Tech' is not 'just' another tool. 

Defining digital technology as 'just another tool' is true, but it is also a massive understatement.

It's akin to describing...

Water? 'just' another liquid,
Oxygen? 'just' another gas,
The wheel? 'just' another cylinder,
Electricity? 'just' another type of energy,
The Earth? 'just' another planet,
The Sun? 'just' another star... 

I could go on, but you get the point. 

This word 'just' in this context is demeaning, it is naively dismissive, it is ... diminutive.

To move the comparison to a more familiar context, ie that of tools, tools hewn by humanity from the husk of the earth, it's like describing planes, trains and automobiles as 'just another form of transportation' ... Which of course they are.

But ... isn't that a little disingenuous?

... Just take a little time to think about the impact that even 'just' the aeroplane has had, technology that moves 'just' hundreds of thousands of people every day, at speeds in excess of 500mph all over the planet. Think of the impact of this technology, upon commerce, culture and communication you will realise that it is far more than 'just' a form of transportation, it is an application of technology which has had an absolutely revolutionary impact on life on planet earth in the 20th Century—more than the bicycle? Yes.

19th Century Learning

20th Century Learning

The impact of digital tools or technologies on life and learning in the 21st century is going to be arguably more revolutionary than that of the chalk and the blackboard or the pencil and paper in the 20th century. Why? Because ICTs encompass so much that preceded them, but when the transformational attributes such as situated learning, unprecedented access, mutability, multi-modality and the sheer synergy of social networks (SAMMS) are added? You have a tool with a capacity and a capability beyond all tools, especially when it comes to learning.

Does this mean I have nothing but scorn for the rudimentary (battery free) power of the humble pencil and page? Of course not, teachers from have been transforming learning with these kinds of tools (and less) for millennia, but clinging to JUST the tools of yesterday when you have the option of using the tools of today and tomorrow, is like opting to cycle from Singapore to London when you have an airline ticket.

Can you? Yes. But should you?

Digital technology. It's not 'just' another tool, it's THE tool of the 21st Century.

Ownership of Learning - What does that actually look like?

"Students as owners of their own learning"

Leading teachers through the 'key strategies of formative assessment' (Wiliam, 2011) the one I wrestle with the most is the last one:

1. Clarifying learning intentions
2. Eliciting evidence
3. Feedback that moves learning forward
4. Students as learning resources for one another (peer assessment)
5. Students as owners of their own learning (self assessment)

Only because, in a 'traditional' learning environment, such as that I commonly observe in Cambodia, one things that really stands out is the fact that it is commonplace for every single child in the class to work on 

exactly. the. same. thing.

In desperation I searched for a basis to question the validity of this, and the ownership element struck me as an obvious candidate.. except that no matter how much I read I just couldn't find a way to get the literature to say what I wanted it to say, that ownership requires autonomy.

The nearest I could get was that ownership involves, "metacognition, motivation, interest, attribution, self-assessment" (Wiliam & Thompson, 2007)


So ownership is interpreted as meaning self assessment, but what is less clear is the extent to which this is even possible unless the students are able to produce outcomes which are 'unique'.

It is my contention that a situation where every student is engaged in the creation of an outcome which is completely identical to the one next to them, is not one where 'ownership' can really be said to be present. A common practice in Cambodia is to give all students identical tasks to complete, like recreating a document on screen based on an identical hard copy, the goal being for all students to produce something is close to that as possible.

Based on this kind of model, students can self assess, the success criteria are clear, as is the learning intention etc, but my contention is that there can't really be 'ownership' if the outcome is not unique to them in some way.

So does 'ownership' relate to unique outcomes, or not ... in desperation I contacted Mr Wiliam himself, and he kindly responded with,

"... all learning outcomes are personal, since the only way one can learn anything is to make it one's own. 

However, it seems that you are asking something slightly different, which is can the learning of imposed goals ever be truly "owned". And I think the answer to this question is yes. The account of the work of Deci and Ryan in the attached chapter (p. 1081) provides some insight here. As they say, extrinsically motivated learning can still be autonomous..."

So off I went and read the kindly attached article thoroughly, not just the bit he referenced but the whole thing:

Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, 1053-1098.

And what I found was intriguing, you see the very study Dylan cites in defence of the importance of self assessment, actually places as much (if not more) emphasis on autonomy...  Reading further back in the article, to the beginning of section about which this conversation focuses. Reading the study described on p 1078 I can't see how the results could be attributed to self-assessment alone, the clear emphasis on increasing student autonomy has to have been as influential, if not more so. It's strange that the effect is automatically assumed to be solely due to self assessment, without any attempt to differentiate between the influence of those two distinct elements.

"The scores of the students taught by the teachers developing self-assessment improved by 15 points—almost twice as big an improvement." p 1081

Surely they were developing student autonomy to at least as great an extent as their abilities to self assess? In fact it seem to me that the two are synergetic; autonomy facilitates self assessment:

"Finally, in the last 10 weeks, students were allowed to set their own learning objectives, to construct relevant mathematical problems, to select appropriate manipulatives, and to identify suitable self-assessments."

And I'm pleased to report that things are already changing, check out the CHANGE, last week:

So, my respectful apologies Mr Wiliam, but I just can't encourage our teachers to keep managing classes of automatons mindlessly churning out identical outcomes, like a production line.

I think it's a particularly important distinction in the context of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL), as in contexts where teaching is dominated by traditional technologies like the photocopier (class worksheets), there is clearly a lack of autonomy (even if there is motivation, for whatever reason) ... Set them free!

Teacher to Teacher [T2T]

T2T is a new and ambitious service initiative I am proud to be able to say that we established this year, supported by the college where we work to create an opportunity for teachers to work with teaching colleagues in Cambodia.

The 'Teacher to Teacher' (T2T) training initiative is currently in its pilot year of what is anticipated as a sustained commitment to provide both curricular and pedagogical support for teaching colleagues in Cambodia.  This project has the specific aim to build capacity in educational practice.

In Cambodia we are working with teachers at Cambodian Children's Fund (CCF), which operates six centres in Phnom Penh.  CCF provides educational support for students from preschool to university.  The CCF kids are vulnerable children, most of whom used to work on the Phnom Penh dump site.

Requests for training in the following areas have been requested by CCF:

• Child centred practice
• Curriculum development, planning, and assessment
• Instructional strategies and classroom management
• English language training
• ICT skills development and integrated practice 

The commitment is considerable but we felt anything less would be prone to the sorts of ineffective support that are so common with these kind of initiatives; the kind of support or 'voluntourism' that is often given by well-meaning but impractical volunteers. We knew that the only way for change to be meaningful and really effective would be for it to be ongoing, so we travel to Cambodia three times a year to provide teacher training during our school holidays in October, Chinese New Year and March.

We work with the team in Cambodia to plan a syllabus that responds to evolving needs of each of three core groups: Early Childhood Education (ECE), English language (EAL), and ICT/ digital literacy development and integration as a discrete focus, and eventually as an integrated element of ECE and EAL.

After each visit, we continue support through regular communication with partner teachers in Cambodia, reflecting on our previous visits and planning and preparing for our future is it in an iterative, collaborative process of improvement.

Continuing Professional Development 

An unexpected, but nevertheless impressive aspect of this initiative has been its impact on my own practice as a teacher.  I have no problem with the idea that we are effectively going to Cambodia because we believe that what we are doing is 'better' than what they are doing... Which sounds arrogant, but if it is not true, then we have no business going at all. And if what we are doing really is better then it should be just as effective (if not more so) in our considerably well resourced environment at home as it is in the comparatively less well resourced environment in Cambodia. What I'm finding is that the better we make their teaching, the better we make our OWN teaching, #WINWIN

What this kind of experience really does is force us to really consider what it is about teaching practice that really is absolutely essential, that makes it 'better'. When working through a translator you really have to strip away anything that could be superfluous and refine everything down to the absolute minimum, something which is a cathartic process in and of itself. The process I intend to document from time to time here on this blog using the label #T2T. 

FOCUS Lessons

Having just returned from a week of teacher training in Phnom Penh, at the most magnificent CCF I have to confess that within 15 mins of my first lesson observation (of a planned 6 lessons in 2 days) I was seriously struggling with the point of it.

Why observe without acting?

Well the truth is I just couldn't just sit there and watch, knowing that this lesson, NOW could be better. If it can then, let's ACT, lets do what we can, while we can, NOW.

And a FOCUS lesson was born—well the acronym emerged during a wonderful massage later on, but the practice was already a fact; only it was a practice that I was struggling to describe to my colleagues, when I confessed I'd abandoned the observations, and lab-sites that they so dutifully (and professionally I might add) pursued.

So, what did I do instead?

Well, I attempted to describe it as an observation, cum intervention/co-teach/sharing/skilling/teaching/reflecting/advising/adjusting lesson.

To which they said something like, "Well you're going to have to come up with a better way of describing it than that."

So I did, and I have. And in case you're wondering, it was a GREAT massage.

So I call them FOCUS lessons, largely inspired by Dylan Wiliam's (2011) 5 key strategies for formative assessment, which I pretty much use for almost everything... Just substituting 'learners' for 'teachers' Yes, I know teachers that are any good have to be learners, but you know what I mean...

1. Clarifying, sharing, and understanding [teaching] intentions and criteria for success
2. Engineering effective classroom discussions, activities, and [teaching] tasks that elicit evidence of [teaching] 
3. Providing feedback that moves [teaching] forward 
4. Activating [teachers] as instructional resources for one another 
5. Activating [teachers] as owners of their own learning

(Adapted from Wiliam (2011). Embedded formative assessment)

And being a huge fan of acronyms I ended up with:

F: Feedback & Feed Forward
O: Observe (Learning not just teaching)
C: Co-teach & Constructively Criticise
U: Upskill & Unlearn
S: Suggest & Share (good practice)

Meta ACRONYMS

Alphabetically Coded Reminder of Names You Misremember
A Contrived Reduction Of Nomenclature Yielding Mnemonics
A Concise Reduction Obliquely Naming Your Meaning
A Clever Re-Organisation to Nudge Your Memory