Is coding the ’21st century writing’?

Last week I attended a professional learning day where I was introduced to Code Club Australia, a network of coding clubs for Aussie Kids aged 9 – 11 which uses ScratchIan Wedlock facilitated the day and I was impressed with his calm but assured belief in the learning benefits associated with coding. As part of his presentation he:

  • Asked participants to “think origami – follow sequential instructions and be precise.”
  • Reminded us of instances when programming goes wrong by showing The Breakfast Machine and The Lipstick Machine. Quite funny.
  • Introduced us to Rube Goldberg machines which “require all the coding skills without the technology”. 

Whilst sharing these and other resources, Ian confirmed that coding, in particular Scratch, allows students to program interactive stories, games and animations which requires them to think creatively, reason systematically and work collaboratively; all important 21st century skills.

The discourse around coding in schools is, in part, prompted by predictions that 40 to 55% of current jobs will be made redundant by technology within the next 10 years. In a world where robots could be performing one third of U.S. surgeries by 2021 and where a robot arm builds a house in just two days, future jobs will increasingly require employees to create and program those robots. Coding is a good starting point for that to be a possibility for a significant number of our young people.

Matt Resnick articulates the benefits of coding for young people in Let’s Teach Kids to Code (16 mins). With reference to Scratch he outlines the benefits of coding for young people code so they can do more than just use new tech toys; they can also create them. However, what resonates with me the most are the analogies Resnick makes with reading and writing.

Firstly, he points out that it is useful for everyone to read and write, and whilst these skills will be useful in almost everything not everyone will become a professional writer or resident book reviewer. And so it is with coding. When people learn to code they simplify complex ideas, collaborate, fix things and persevere in the face of frustration, that’s called resilience! Such skills and dispositions will be transferrable to almost all aspects of future work.

And secondly, Resnick reminds the viewer that the actions of browsing, chatting, texting and gaming do not make young people digitally fluent. For those who can use technology applications to ‘create’, they are digitally fluent. However, for those who cannot, “It is almost as if they can read but not write with new technologies.”

As I tweeted during the day with Ian,

Tweet
Maybe I got that a little wrong.  So before publishing this blog, I tweeted….

Tweet 2

As always, I welcome your comments.

Greg.

A modernised HSC may have to go

Just last week the next iteration of a modernised HSC was released by the New South Wales government. Unfortunately, it appears to be ‘dressing up the old’. I wonder if those who managed the process which led to its publication

Capture 2

(via @HealthyLDN as reposted by @nickya73 on Twitter, 26 July, 2016)

As part of the media promotions that come with such government announcements, it was promised the new HSC would be setting students up for success. New pathways for post school are required because the HSC is a lagging indicator of school success rather than a leading indicator for life success.

Executive Director of Catholic Education Diocese of Parramatta, Greg Whitby reflected that the new HSC was simply modernising educational relics and stated,

“The HSC reforms really are a missed opportunity to bring some coherence to educational policy and radically rethink how we assess the spectrum of students’ learning and skills.”

Greg also asked, “Where is the New Thinking?” Well, here are some thoughts….

  • Pre-school becomes part of the K-12 learning continuum by allowing resources, funding and structures to ‘cross the divide’ of those very definitive and separated entities. This may mean breaking with current regulations and, for example, actually paying early learning teachers the same as primary school teachers. It may also see ‘Junior Kindy’ and ‘Senior Kindy’ exist over two years so that Kindergarten is a stage rather than a year.
  • Observe and report on social and emotional outcomes for Kindergarten and Stage 1 students as often as literacy, numeracy and other KLA outcomes are assessed and reported. Oh heck, why not do this until students conclude Year 4?
  • Have leading indicators for life success, as discussed in data and questions, shape a data informed, strengths based coaching program for students in stages 3 to 6. Using various data sources, each student would identify their interests, abilities and passions and link them to vocations and jobs of the future. Maybe the 75 minutes per week of pastoral care time which exists in most secondary schools could be redirected towards this?
  • Develop an enterprise skills continuum, by delivering the ‘The New Basics‘ and embedding ‘enterprise rubrics’ into mainstream schooling. Those 8 skills as determined by fya.org.au (see picture below) could be observed and assessed through self assessment, peer feedback and teacher conversation rather than through the judgement of a test mark or grade. Wouldn’t it be great if assessing and reporting on these skills were as mainstream as outcomes based KLA assessment and reporting?

Enterprise Skills

  • Lastly, have multiple school exit points of which the HSC is but just one exit. However, that’s a whole other conversation!

Of course, for each of the above suggestions (or others like them) something has to go. In an already packed curriculum serving the needs of a government economic agenda, there is not one more ‘priority’ which can be squeezed into the school day. Something, or some things have to go. I suggest the modernised HSC is one of them.

I welcome your feedback, comments and/or constructive criticism.

Greg.

 

 

 

A Longer School Day?

THE NEW YOU

With more than 380,000 students aged 5 to 12 attending our of hours school care, and unmet demand for another 80 000 children as estimated by the the Australian ­Bureau of Statistics, the call for schools to offer services ‘above and beyond’ the normal school day continue to grow. For quite some time now, the rise of single parenting and working families has challenged the 1950s’ construct of the 9 to 3 school day. A few months back, Federal Minister for Education, Simon Bermingham, was quoted in The Australian as saying he was “open to longer school day” In that same article, there are references to schools providing services beyond the traditional school day.

Across Australia, there are already a number of ‘services’ both ‘within’ and ‘outside’ the school day. These services are offered in the form of early learning centres, primary schools, secondary schools and  K-12 learning communities.(I am uneasy with the term ‘services’, especially when linked to primary and secondary school; however, I use it for the purposes of this blog). Furthermore, and to complement these educational offerings there are out of school hour care centres. 

As part of recent conversations with my work, I have become aware of the different regulations and requirements for school settings as distinct from early learning centres, as distinct from long day care providers, as distinct from out of school hour care centres. In recent times there has been great effort and noted success in raising the standard of early learning, reflective of its importance, as there has been with out of school hours care. Despite these successes, the various educational offerings act as separate entities and ‘bolt-ons’ rather than integrated services. There is great work being done within each educational entity; however, the reality is they are not integrated. 

The idea of an extended school day responds to the needs of families to have children cared for in a way which supersedes the 1950’s school construct. We can challenge the idea of ‘what the school day looks like’ by providing an experience focused on learning which looks different and better for each student and family. However, how do we do this without providing more work for teachers and staff across all sectors? Another question might be, “How much more is the education sector expected to do?”

The conversation about an extended school day poses many questions. A third question, but with a more positive spin…..”Is there an opportunity to provide quality pre to post school learning with services connected in a way which acknowledges learning as a continuum and transcends the traditional boundaries of time and space?”

If we are to extend the school day, the answer is not more of the same with longer learning blocks as part longer days with more face to face for teachers. We need to be more creative than that! I suppose, my inquiry really is…..

…. In what ways can extending the school day provide integrated services which offer an all inclusive, learning focused approach to the school day?

There may be learning communities already doing this. If so, please let me know.

I look forward to feedback, questions and comments.

Greg

 

 

New pathways to ‘post school’ required.

I recently  spoke with Colin Klupiec from Learn Fast in my capacity as the newly appointed Principal Leader at St Luke’s, Marsden Park. Colin’s professionalism, deep knowledge of Australian education and strong desire for a ‘new paradigm for learning’, meant that I enjoyed our time discussing the future of education in Australia within the one local context of St Luke’s.

St Luke’s is a (soon to be established) ‘next generation’ learning community. As part of the conversation Colin and I discussed ways to blur the finish line of schooling. Currently, that finish line is when the vast majority of young people conclude their formal education at the end of Year 12, around mid-December each year. In NSW, the checkered flag waves frantically for 24 hours with the release of HSC results followed by the release of the ATAR* the next day.

ATARs have increasingly become less meaningful as expressed in a recent article ‘Not in our national interest’: Universities slammed over ATAR leniency’ by Eryk Bagshaw.  Universities have compromised tertiary entry standards in pursuit of growing enrolments. Increasing ATAR offer rates below 50 has been one of many approaches.

ATARs below 50

Whilst the number of university degrees is increasing, the value of a university degree is in decline. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, of bachelor degree graduates who were available for full-time employment in 2000, 83.6 per cent were in full-time employment within four months of completing their degrees in 1999. Since then, the trend has been….

  • in 2005, 80.9 per cent were in full-time employment within four months of completing their degrees.
  • in 2010,  76.2 per cent were in full-time employment within four months of completing their degrees.
  • In 2015,  68.8 per cent were in full-time employment within four months of completing their degrees.

It may well be that there are now more university degrees for less jobs or it may be that employers are looking further afield than the traditional degrees as evidenced by FYA’s most recent report. Employers in Australia are increasingly advertising for people who exhibit the ‘New Basics’ of Digital Literacy, Critical Thinking, Creativity and Problem Solving.

Enterpise Skills

Reading between the lines of the report, and with reference to Jim Bright’s article below, it appears employers may be unsure of how HSC results or  an ATAR number assists an employer to ascertain a prospective employee’s capability in these areas.

SMH Article

In the interests of best preparing our students for the future which awaits them, it is now time to look at more flexible post school pathways other than just the HSC and ATARs. These pathways would see students:

  • make links with industry by showing their work through their online presence, one which connects with experts across the world; OR,
  • create their own start up business in Year 8, 9 or 10 (possibly after many failed attempts) by asking them the question, “What problem do you want to solve?”; OR,
  • assisted by their wider learning community (not just school) to develop the skills for the surprising jobs of today.

I welcome your thoughts.

Greg

* The ATAR is The Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) is the primary criterion for entry into most undergraduate-entry university programs in Australia. It was gradually introduced during 2009 and 2010 to replace the Universities Admission Index, Equivalent National Tertiary Entrance Rank and Tertiary Entrance Rank.

 

 

 

 

A Week Hosting @EduTweetOz

I am honoured to be asked to host @EduTweetOz for the week commencing Sunday 3 April. @EduTweetOz is a social media space on both Twitter and Facebook that sees a different Australian Educator hosting the account each week where they share their views and perspective on education. Hosting the account requires me to be quite active throughout the week with the aim of generating discussion.

The areas of focus for the week may centre around:

  1. Ed. leadership for a digital age.
  2. The best use of time.
  3. Contemporary pedagogies.
  4. Using technology to accelerate learning.

With regards technology and learning, there has been recent debate about the value of otherwise of technology for learning. Some schools have taken the step to ban or reduce days with laptops. I am a little unsure as to why when the devices themselves are not the technology, they are indeed a tool which offers the user to engage with applications which are relevant in this day and age.

It seems we are assessing the value of technology based on test scores from end of school exit examinations or NAPLAN learning growth. I cannot recall any educator making the claim that introducing laptops will result in better NAPLAN or HSC results. Until outcomes such as critical thinking, creativity, collaboration and global connection are valued as much as test scores, it is unfair to judge the value of devices and technology when addressing its impact for students.

Generally, we are spending too much time focusing on the technology and not enough of the pedagogy. we need to clearly focus on what Fullan calls “Pedagogical Capacity” and the need for it to address the reality which comes with emerging  technologies.

Fullan Quote

 

While there may be a focus on the areas mentioned above, I will also post ‘just in time’ items of interest as well as post a few posters collected from Twitter over the last twelve months or so. Furthermore, I may tend to ask questions than pretend I have the all the answers.

I look forward to the week ahead!

Greg

(Recommendations for) Designing Learning Spaces – Part 2

In this contemporary age, what is the ideal learning space? As part of A New Learning Space in 2014, I referred to this ideal learning space offered by OECD.

Learning Space - The Ideal OECD 2011
The Ideal Learning Space – OECD 2011

More recently, on December 11, 2015 I published, Designing Learning Spaces – Part 1. In that post I highlighted some of the research which strongly argues that learning spaces can accelerate learning initiatives grounded in student-centred pedagogy.

There is little doubt that learning space design has a significant role to play in facilitating and reflecting new pedagogical approaches. The teacher-student relationship is changing, with a shift to student-centred teaching in multi-purpose spaces that allow for individuals and groups, specialist areas, indoor and outdoor learning, and flexible community oriented spaces. With that in mind, I make the following recommendations. They are offered:

  • with the research in mind;
  • literature encountered as part of my recent Master of Education – Knowledge Networks and Digital Innovation at Charles Sturt University;
  • recent experience as a principal in a contemporary learning setting; and,
  • engagement with new and refurbishment building processes as part of my current system based role.

So……. , when designing learning spaces:

RECOMMENDATION ONE

Involve the users, especially the students.

Real change cannot occur without involvement and input from teachers and students; the main users of space (Sanders and Stappers 2008; Kuuskorpi and Cabellos 2011). The planning and design of school spaces should be adapted to daily practices and school organisation, which means taking users’ views into consideration (Veloso, Marques et al. 2014). Involving students in the design process may result in a more shared sense of purpose (Hunter 2006). Furthermore, involving teachers in the design process may result in them becoming more confident and able to reorganise their classrooms according to their pedagogical intentions (Martin 2006).

Therefore, schools are obligated to engage users in the design process when designing learning spaces.

RECOMMENDATION TWO

Introduce key stakeholders to Learning Space dialogue.

If students and teachers are to become co-designers of learning spaces we may need to provide alternative learning experiences and curricular to assist with the development of the creative mindset for those who are designing (Sanders and Stappers 2008). Such learning experiences could be as follows:

Therefore, schools are obligated to engage with research and learning space design thought leaders. 

 

RECOMMENDATION THREE:

Remember Pedagogy and Technology.

The emerging area of learning space design integrates the pedagogy of learning with the technology that is used within spaces, both physical and virtual (Wilson and Randall 2012). The convergence of pedagogy, space and technology, provides a framework with which to address a host of issues associated with the design of learning spaces (Oblinger 2005). The commitment to link learning theory with physical space can see it as…. ‘chicken and egg as to what comes first’. However, ongoing and extensive dialogue about both contemporary learning (pedagogy and technology) and building design (space) will bring substance to new buildings and spaces.

Therefore, schools are obligated to demonstrate evidence of how the learning space supports pedagogy and technology use to accelerate learning.

RECOMMENDATION FOUR:

Design for students’ needs.

Communities and cultures are now more connected and more informed than ever before (Friedman 2006; Sanders and Stappers 2008). Therefore, there is a need to design for people’s purpose more so than designing products (Sanders and Stappers 2008). This currently translates to designing and creating learning spaces which:

  • support the development of skills as compared to concentration on content;
  • focus more on formative assessment and the process of learning, rather than just the summative assessment and end product of learning; and,
  • take into account the student-centred approaches as much, if not more than teacher directed delivery.

Therefore, are obligated to demonstrate an understanding of how any new space will support the development of skills and student-centred approaches to learning.

RECOMMENDATION FIVE

Adopt a ‘prototype mindset’

By adopting a ‘prototype mindset’, the user increases their understanding of the space and its capabilities which can then inform the type of learning activities possible within the space (Wilson and Randall 2012); after all, educational spaces embody the pedagogical philosophies of their designers (Monahan 2002). The communication and collaboration that comes with iterative nature of prototyping is one characteristic that is lacking in most classroom and building design processes.

Therefore, schools re obligated to engage with an extensive process of iteration among and between staff, parents and students which lead to the final building design.

In conclusion, these above five recommendations offer a way forward for schools to better lead and manage the design and building of new and refurbished learning spaces.

I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Regards and Thanks,

Greg.

 

REFERENCES

Friedman, T. (2006). The World is Flat: The globalised world in the twenty-first century., Farrer, Straus and Giroux.

Hunter, B. (2006). “The eSpaces Study: Designing, Developing and managing Learning Spaces for Effective Learning.” New Review of Academic Libriananship 12(2): 61-81.

Kelley, D. (2012). “How to build your creative confidence.” Retrieved 4 August, 2014, from http://www.ted.com/talks/david_kelley_how_to_build_your_creative_confidence?language=en.

Kuuskorpi, M. and G. Cabellos (2011). The Future of the Physical Learning Environment: School facilities that support the user. O. Publishing.

Martin, S. H. (2006). “The classroom environment and children’s performance-is there a relationship.” Children and their environments: learning, using and designing spaces: 91-107.

McIntosh, E. (2010). “Seven Spaces of Learning.” Retrieved 24 September, 2014, from http://vimeo.com/15945912.

Monahan, T. (2002). “Flexible space and built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments.” Inventio—Creative Thinking about Learning and Teaching 4(1).

Oblinger, D. (2005). “Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces.” Educause Quarterly 1(7-12).

Pilloton, E. (2010). “Teaching design for change.” Retrieved 28 July, 2014, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiIxdFBA0Sw.

Robinson, K. (2012, 21 May 2014). “Why is Creativity Important in Education? .” Adobe Education Series. Retrieved 8 August, 2014, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywIhJ2goiGE&feature=youtu.be.

Sanders, E. B.-N. and P. J. Stappers (2008). “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.” Co-design 4(1): 5-18.

Thornburg, D. (2007) Campfires in cyberspace: Primordial metaphors for learning in the 21st century. . Thornburg Center for Professional Development. Retrieved from: http://tcpd.org/Thornburg/Handouts/Campfires.pdf

Veloso, L., J. S. Marques, et al. (2014). “Changing education through learning spaces: impacts of the Portuguese school buildings’ renovation programme.” Cambridge Journal of Education 44(3): 401-423.

Wilson, G. and M. Randall (2012). “The implementation and evaluation of a new learning space: a pilot study.” Research in Learning Technology 20.