Evidence-based based or
not, we would be hard pressed to find an educator who doesn't feel that the
learner has changed in the last 15 years. Since the advent of the
internet, mobile devices and the ability for students to connect to whatever
they wish whenever they wish to, most educators would say that it has become
increasingly challenging to engage students with the content in their
classrooms. This is somewhat debatable--we are making a broad assumption
that, prior to this ‘instant connectivity’, students were truly engaged in
their subject content in the first place. However, without doubt, there
are an abundance of readily available, highly-personalized learning
opportunities and distractions to our students of today: these often make
the environment for the learner outside of the school markedly different than
their experiences inside of the classroom. Whether we like it or not,
there are many differences in the students of today versus those in the 1990s.
In response and concurrently with the changes in our students, numerous
educational jurisdictions are attempting to change their approach to curriculum
to provide students and teachers with more choice and opportunities for
individualization. Consider the following:
- In
Finland: Finland’s use of school-based, student-centered, open-ended tasks
embedded in the curriculum is often touted as an important reason for the
nation’s success on the international exams. The national core curriculum
provides teachers with recommended assessment criteria for specific grades
in each subject and in the overall final assessment of student progress
each year. Local schools and teachers then use those guidelines to craft a
more detailed curriculum and set of learning outcomes at each school, as
well as approaches to assessing benchmarks in the curriculum. According to
the Finnish National Board of Education, the main purpose of assessing
students is to guide and encourage students’ own reflection and
self-assessment.
- In
British Columbia: BC’s Education Plan states “while a solid
knowledge base in the basic skills will be maintained, to better prepare
students for the future there will be more emphasis on key competencies
like self-reliance, critical thinking, inquiry, creativity, problem
solving, innovation, teamwork and collaboration, cross-cultural
understanding, and technological literacy. We can also connect students
more directly with the world outside of school, with increased focus on
learning these skills across topic areas.
- In Alberta: “Inspiring Education and Curriculum Redesign are pointing the way to a reimagined system that will empower Alberta’s young people to become the leaders of tomorrow in our communities, workplaces and society. It is about being innovative and creative about the ways we are using existing curriculum today and bringing the best parts of Alberta’s proud education legacy into a 21st-century context with our future curriculum to ensure that all learners have access to an excellent education that prepares them for a bright future.
And these are but three
samples of dozens of cases of curriculum reform across North America and the
world. Curricula are changing to reflect the changing needs of students
and demands of society.
So we see changes in the
learner, and we see changes in the curriculum--but what about the other piece of this instructional core? What about the educator? In the seven principles of Instructional Rounds, City et al state “If you
change any single element of the instructional core, you have to change the
other two to affect student learning.” This makes sense to me--if the
learner changes, and the curriculum changes, we have to ensure that the skill
set and in some cases even the mindset of educators (at all levels--teachers,
administrators, and support services) changes commensurately. If we have
a new curriculum which calls for students to develop an understanding of the
role of technologies in shaping and influencing society, clearly we would have
to work with educators so they could learn some of these technologies and be
able to apply this knowledge to use them to shape and influence society
themselves. If we expect the students to be able to demonstrate this
skill, clearly someone needs to demonstrate it to them. Clearly.
Or maybe not so clearly.
Are we actually helping educators learn? Are we creating mechanisms that deliberately
and consistently allow educators to themselves become the experts that we want
them to be? And most importantly, are we creating the environments
that are conducive to learning and teaching in ways that we know are best for
adult learning?
If I look at this wordle
that was recently created by a hundred or so educators at a PD session I hosted, I have some questions. From
the prompt “Teachers learn best when…”, the group responses were summarized here:
in combination with the
idea that “we learn by doing”, and then subsequently reflect upon the learning opportunities we have with educators such as staff meetings, team leader meetings,
collaborative meetings, district meetings, professional development days and
conferences, I really don’t know. I really don’t know if we are doing all
that should help each of the educators at every level in our school systems move in a way or
at a pace that is commensurate with the changes that we see in curricula and
the students of today.
But we have the chance to change the way we educate educators. We know that the tiny push off of the dock that teacher training programs at colleges and universities is not enough to last us a career. We know that we have the chance to approach the aforementioned educator learning opportunities differently. We just have to do things differently. And I believe that it starts with a simple question:
"Are we educating the educators in ways that optimize their learning?"
And if we aren't...why not, and how can we do it?
Sounds like something I need to look into more.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete