A Mountain of Tears

I have written previously about the wonderful online courses run by the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) through Coursera and this week I got to put into practice some of the great lesson activities from their recent offering. Their Arts and Activity course focuses on implementing practical activities that get students to focus, reflect and create based on different art works. The course is based around practical activities that are used by the MoMA staff on a daily basis and it is nicely supplemented by readings on the theory of education and museums.

This week I have been focusing on writing descriptions with my ESL class. To begin the week I was reading about gaming and making learning more active. As such, I decided to take a normally boring activity of describing a scene or picture and turn it into a game. I got the students and we walked down to the shopping centre and I put a pair of students on each level. Each pair had to take 5 pictures of shops on their mobile phones and write a detailed description of one shop. Once we got back to the classroom, the pairs wrote out their description and then took turns trying to guess what the other pairs had described. I was impressed by the way that the groups tried to write more cryptic clues and the ways that they used smell, touch and colour to create a vivid picture of their chosen shop. I then finished the lesson by reflecting on the use of language and wrote some key vocabulary on the board.

Today, I decided to do the picture postcard activity from this week’s lecture. I started by putting up an image of Winter Moonlit Night (Wintermondnacht) by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner (https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/ernst-ludwig-kirchner-winter-moonlit-night-wintermondnacht-1919-in-fall-1918) and playing some relaxing background music from YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_orGF2zM5o). I then got everyone to stand and did a guided imaginative tour of the painting. I asked the students to use each of their senses to imagine what it would be like to be in the scene and to visualise what they are seeing, hearing, and touching. I then got them to sit down and draw a small section of the work. I reiterated that I was not worried about the quality of the drawing but instead wanted them to observe the work closely while drawing. I then got them to write a letter to a friend or member of their family about their trip to this mountain.

One of the key parts of the success of the activity was the use of the music. It was relaxing and set a wonderful quite mood for the classroom. Moreover, it fitted perfectly with the work – more accident than good management – thus creating a harmony of visual and aural setting. Also, I actively participated in the process by vocalizing what I imagined during the initial stages then drawing and writing along with the students. While I did more around the class to see that everyone was on task, my earnest involvement encouraged the rest of them to stay on task.

After everyone had finished their letters, I got pairs to swap letters and give each other 2 pieces of positive feedback on the writing. We had an odd number so once again I involved myself and read a student’s letter. This was working so well I didn’t want to interrupt but I wanted to get some of the good ideas I was hearing into the public so I then asked if people would like to share what they liked about their partner’s letter. Each pair was able to share an emotion of way of writing that thy enjoyed and one of the students suggested everyone read their letter out aloud to the class. Since everyone was comfortable with this we started to read the letters aloud, with the music still going in the background.

This was where things got special. I was blown away by how touching and heartfelt the letters I heard being read. While many wrote to a parent about their trip, one wrote to an ex-boyfriend and another wrote a Murakami-esque piece to a long lost girlfriend he imagined as awaiting him atop the mountain. It was half way through this process that I noticed one of my students crying. It seems that the emotion of sharing the experience of being on an adventure but missing home and family at the same time had really touched her and brought back some sad memories. Moreover, the atmosphere in the class allowed her to feel that she could express these emotions and no one was judgemental or made fun of her crying.

By the time we had finished the room had a sad poignancy about it but everyone felt comfortable at the same time. We discussed the challenge of being away from home, as most of the young people in my class are experiencing, and the mixed emotions that come with this. They also asked me about the picture and if they could do this with other pieces of art. Interestingly, one of the students commented that doing the drawing helped him look closely at the work and the visualisation helped him to develop his writing.

Overall, this was one of those lessons that make me love my job. The people in that room today felt a special bond as they shared being on a scary but exciting journey. Some of us cried and all of us felt a little homesick but we all left feeling good about class. Thank you MoMA!

Too real?

How far do you go to make a learning experience real for students? What is the boundary between ethical and unethical behaviour? Is a great learning experience worth your career?

Ron Jones explored all of these questions in his real life experiement called The Third Wave. Captured vividly in the insightful documentary Lesson Plan (http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/lesson-plan/ZX6433A001S00), it outlines how his social experiment played out in his school, its long term impact on the students and its impact today.

The interesting thing for me was that it is one of the best examples of experiental education in the Dewey mould. That is, he was able to recreate the environment in which the Germans felt compelled to support Adolf Hitler and thus show his students how easy it is to become enthralled with a charasmatic dictator. Moreover, the students to this day can still vividly recall the experience and a handful have used the experience to encourage them to promote the lessons learnt in their own lives.

Unfortunately, the all encompassing experience Jones created was also harmful to many of the students. The documentary does not try to hide the fact that some of the students felt socially isolated and fearful because they did not go along with The Third Wave. Shockingly, a student reporter at the time reveals that he was physically intimidated by other students because he was going to report on the class in the school newspaper.

This raises the question: did the important life lessons he taught his students justify the social unrest and hurt that he caused?

From a professional stand point it cost Jones his job at the school and he never worked as a teacher again. Despite his popularity among the student population, he lost the support of the school board because of his experiment (which was approved and supported by the principal) and different teaching style. However, he was also able to gain a semblance of fame because of the event and thus he has had a book, play and tv show produced because of the experiment.

From a student welfare stand point it is not so clear. For the students that learnt important life lessons and gained insight into Nazi Germany the experience was invaluable and it could be argued that no amount of reading, documentaries or other content could replicate that learning experience. However, for students who were emotionally or socially ostracised this would have been painful and one of the students still feels aggrieved.

Finally, from a broader social perspective you could argue that he did society a favour. Like Zimbardo's famous prison experiment, which similarly crossed ethical and moral boundaries and was argued to have gone on too long, this proved to society that the evils of Nazi Germany were not an isolated incident and that we need to be vigilent against charasmatic leaders with immoral agendas. Moreover, like Zimbardo, his social experiment has proved to be an invaluable teaching tool and the book The Wave is an essential text in German schools.

As a teacher I am torn about the merits of Jones' actions. Part of me admires him for being different and challenging the system. Not just in this instance but in the rest of his brief teaching career, Jones was seen as a radical that used new, active and experimental teaching methods to teach his subjects. As such, he was a popular teacher and students were engaged in his classes. However, the extent to which he manipulated the students was dangerous and bordered on creating his own cult of personality. I wonder how much of it was a social experiment and how much was for his own ego? Moreover, no such experiment would ever get approval today and any school that dared risk such a class would probably find itself on the end of a law suit.

What can we make of Ron Jones' social experiment? I think it belonged to a time where schools were more willing to try new things without the fear of legal action and also where students were more likely to buy into the discipline and messages he was selling. I find it hard to imagine a class of students now being as disciplined and blindly following orders as those students in the 1960s. However, I think he is to be commended on trying to make the learning real for his students and embracing the teachable moment in order to show them how easily society can be lead astray.

Homer Glasses Please

One of my greatest bug bears as a teacher is professional development, commonly referred to as PD. The issue is not whether I should do PD: in fact, I do extra PD that is not paid for by any school I have worked at or recorded as part of my professional learning but simply for the sake of feeling like I am an informed, knowledgeable professional. This includes reading books on education, doing online courses on the subject areas I teach and watching television shows that might be useful for my classes. All these are forms of PD I am happy to do and I really enjoy.

There is however a form of PD that I find really tough to swallow: school based PD. This may sound strange coming from someone who actively seeks PD in other forms but the truth of it is that I find a lot of the PD organised by schools to be unproductive and inefficient. This belies the good natured and well-meaning attempts by those in authority to improve the professionalism of my workplaces and often means good money is wasted on speakers who are politely listened to and promptly forgotten when the staff leave the room.

All this is said not as a criticism of the schools themselves because more often than not the speakers have expertise in areas of importance to teachers. For instance, I attended a very informative talk recently about the different learning styles of boys and girls. From this talk I took some important points away about the way that I deal with students and the set-up of my classrooms to support the learning of either sex. In particular, I was interested in a discussion about the organisation of content into a descriptive-reflective-speculative model as it clarified some observations I have had of students for some time. Similarly, I have also learnt a lot of great classroom management tips from attending Kagan workshops organised at another school.

The problem with school based PD can be summarised by the following diagram:

Anyone who has attended a school based PD will find it immediately recognisable. This is the diagram, or some form of it, that is regularly trotted out when these guest speakers wish to highlight the importance of a particular learning style or approach to classroom activities. They will tell you that lectures are the least efficient way of retaining information and that the best way is to get the students to experience the learning themselves. Be it through group work or by experimentation, the act of doing is the best way to learn and something that should be done as often as possible.

They will then spend the next 40 or so minutes lecturing you on why you should allow people to experience the learning themselves with slide after slide of information on how to do this. If you are lucky you might then get some questions in at the end before filing out the door and heading home.

Do you notice the irony?

If you haven’t, look closely at the top part of the pyramid with the lecture style and notice the amount of retention that occurs. Yes, that’s right: 5%. So if people retain only 5% of information given in a lecture format, how much information does the guest speaker and school expect the staff to retain from the PD session?

If the answer to the last question is 5% then they are going about it the right way. Taking into account that these meeting often occur after school when staff have been teaching all day or are just about to start holidays, the low retention rate would not be surprising. Add to the mix that the teachers realise that the guest speaker, who often brags about being an ex-teacher turned principal turned educational guru who lectures people, is making more than they will in a pay cycle and only has to lecture for 2-3 hours to earn it then the retention rate plummets further.

The question then remains why do we still use this as the dominant form of PD? One answer could be that teachers tended to be the well behaved students at school who enjoyed being lectured to by teachers and hence why they are in the profession. Another could be the reality of maintaining ones job by attending mandatory meetings and not doing a Homer Simpson performing jury duty impersonation. Finally, it could be that teachers are actually sadists who enjoy being tortured by largely pointless lectures.

In fact, the answer is that it doesn’t need to be this way.

Taking a leaf out of the Kagan or Tactical Teaching book is the best way forward to produce genuinely useful school based PD. For those who haven’t attended a Kagan workshop, the name itself implies that work will be done. Yes, there is a component of lecturing and slides but they are interspersed with actual movement, interaction with the other people in the room and hands on testing of the techniques and ideas. Even better, the Kagan instructors show you what it is like to be a student on the receiving end of these techniques and thus you can experience what it might be like to be in your own classroom.

One of the best experiences I had on school based PD was my first Kagan workshop on group work and techniques. Being sceptical of the approach I really felt I wouldn’t learn anything so I only half-heartedly participated in the workshops tasks. However, by the first break I couldn’t help but admit that I had learnt something important about my own teaching and what it is like to be student. Even worse, by lunch I had started to enjoy the workshop and looked forward to trying some of the techniques in the workshop and in the classroom. Moreover, the instructors never spent more than 10-15 minutes lecturing me about theory and spent almost half the time getting me to DO the activities.

Looking back at the pyramid this is a clear difference to the traditional model. Practice by doing results in 75% retention and I can attest to the fact that I learnt more in one day then I did in a year’s worth of lectures after school. So what does this mean for school based PD?

Put simply, we need to move past the lecture based model for school based PD. It puts teachers to sleeps, makes them realise they could earn more lecturing other teachers on how to be better teachers (oh the irony!) and has little impact on teaching in classrooms. Instead, schools should invest more in teacher led PD that is hands on and interactive. This means tailoring PD for specific departments or ensuring that whole staff PD has ample opportunities for departments to discuss and plan how to implement the ideas. This was the approach used in Tactical Teaching and the pressure of having to implement and report back on one of the teaching activities was telling: not only did I have to use one of the techniques but it worked and I have used it ever since.

Good school based PD shouldn’t be a glorified educational lecture but should allow professional teachers to think about their practice and consider new approaches. This cannot be done from the anaesthetising grip of a chair in a hall but must involve practice by doing and appropriate follow up to ensure it is being actioned. 

Redesign My Brain

Redesign My Brain poster

A must watch for educators on ABC television at the moment is a new documentary series called Redesign My Brain. Hosted by Todd Sampson from the Gruen Transfer series, he undergoes a series of challenges to change his brain. The first episode last week was on memory and thinking skills while this week was all about creativity. While we may not all be scientists, the show holds a number of important lessons for all educators no matter what subject they teach.

One of the key ideas to come out of the first episode was the incredible ability of the brain to improve itself given the appropriate training. Over the course of a month, Sampson was able to significantly improve his memory, thinking speed and peripheral vision. Apart from a few specialised computer programs, this improvement mainly came about through the act of repetition and daily practice, such as juggling. In the end, he demonstrated the power of simply practicing these skills by memorising a complete deck of cards at the World Memory Championships.

While those of you who have seen or read about brain plasticity (see Norman Doidge’s The Brain That Changes Itself and Barbara Young’s The Woman Who Changed Her Brain) may not be surprised at such results, it is a good reminder of the power of this still largely mysterious human muscle. Moreover, it shows that whatever the age or profession that such transformations are possible.

Specifically though for educators, it is a reminder of the power of encouraging students to practice, practice, practice. This idea, as well as the general area of brain plasticity, was taught to me by my former head of department Brendan Sullivan. For a staff meeting one day he got us all to read an article from an American journal about labelling students as smart. I read the article a little begrudgingly, I generally didn’t like department meetings and extra reading didn’t seem like a good addition, but the information was eye opening. In particular, the notion that labelling a student clever can actually be dangerous to their education came as a surprise. However, the research showed that the label of clever or smart can lead to students avoiding challenges to avoid appearing to be dumb. Moreover, by encouraging students to try hard and persist in the face of adversity lead to improved results. The take home message was to never call students smart in class and it is something I have worked very hard at not doing ever since.

Later that year Brendan also introduced the department to the concept of growth mindset. Based on the work of Carol Dweck, it examined how different students approach challenging class work. The research suggested people can have either a fixed or growth mindset. People with a fixed mindset tend to avoid challenges, give up easily, see effort as wasted, ignore negative feedback and are threatened by the success of others. If this sounds like your top and bottom performing students then you are probably on the right track because this is the sort of thinking schools encourage. That is, by focusing on assessment and labelling students with grades, we subconsciously train kids to have a fixed mindset about the various subjects they do. For instance, I often avoid doing musical related tasks in class because I was ‘bad’ at music at school. Instead, I tend to avoid anything musical and don’t see much point in trying to learn a musical instrument. On the other hand, I was ‘good’ at maths at school so I don’t mind helping out in this area. Consequently, many students come into the classroom with fixed mindsets about their abilities in that subject. Are we then surprised that despite coming up with creative and interesting tasks they just don’t engage?

Dweck also identifies the growth mindset. People with this mindset will embrace challenges, persist in the face of setbacks, see effort as worthwhile, learn from criticism and find inspiration in the success of others. For instance, if I read a book and don’t quite get the meaning or the ideas then I will reread or do research until I do. I clearly have a growth mindset when it comes to English – luckily I am an English teacher! However, I have also tried to apply this to my other areas of interest such as rock climbing. I am not ashamed to admit I have only completed 1 climb so far in the year and a half I have been climbing but that doesn’t upset me. I know that every time I go out to a rock face that I am getting better. Moreover, I know that when I regularly practice in the climbing gyms and do my core exercises at home my climbing gets even better.

The problem is how to get students to think like this. Clearly it is not something they naturally do because we encourage them to do otherwise with our grading and reporting. To counter this I decided to teach my students this year about fixed and growth mindsets. This wasn’t content in any of the curricula I used or mandated by the schools but it was something I felt was important. Thus, I gave each student a diagram of the two mindsets and asked them, “Who here is good at English?” This allowed me to straight away get out my mantra of practice, practice, practice. Hence, I set the ground work early in all my classes: no one is good at English in my class but we can all work hard. Importantly, I make a point of recognising those who do work hard and seek help to improve. This can be as simple as noting publicly someone using a planner to improve a piece of writing or seeking help to understand something better. These are not big in themselves but they reinforce the idea that it is the effort and practice that count not some innate ability.

Finally, this idea led me to utilise what is known as Good Learning Behaviours (GLBs for short). This came from the PEEL research (http://www.peelweb.org/index.cfm?resource=good%20behaviours) and when used in conjunction with growth mindsets helps promote a great classroom environment. Importantly, it encourages students to take ownership of their own learning and seeks ways to improve. Thus, I also teach my classes GLBs at the beginning of every year. I take it a step further by giving each student the GLBs list and making them stick it in their record book so they can reference it easily in any class. And yes, once again I can praise students for seeking help and planning rather than simply being clever.

In conclusion, Redesign My Brain may not be ground breaking in the research uncovered or the ideas presented but it is a good reminder of the power of our own brains. Moreover, it highlights how much power we have to improve our own skills through practice and a growth mindset. I better stop typing now so I can do my juggling practice – never too old to learn some new tricks.

A Window into Shattered Lives

The problem of juvenile offenders is much more complex then "name and shame" Jarrod

Last week I wrote an open letter to Queensland attorney general Jarrod Bleijie about his proposed “name and shame” laws for juveniles in the Backwards, oops, Sunshine State. I posted that letter on this blog, tweeted the minister (@JarrodBleijieMP) and sent him an email with my full contact details so that he could get back to me. Unsurprisingly he hasn’t responded and probably with good reason: he has been roundly criticised for this ridiculous law. There was even an insightful and detailed article by educator Dan Haesler (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/haesler-name-and-shame-juveniles/4984188) pointing out not only the emotional impacts but the lack of a sound economic or statistical reason for the policy. Yes, he is introducing this law as juvenile repeat offender rates are decreasing – talk about creating a crisis in order to appear “tough”.

This issue came up again for me this week as I was watching an ABC2 documentary called Kids Behind Bars. The multi-part documentary looks at the worst juvenile offenders in detention in Britain. Each episode typically focuses on 3 children and gives their back stories as well as their journey through the detention centre. While at first I was shocked at the violence, language and attitude of these children, the documentary painted a convincing picture about what these kids really need.

One of the common aspects to all the subjects of the documentary was the dysfunctional home environment that they faced. While this was not always the fault of the parents, the carers and teachers at the centre spoke regularly about the need to set clear boundaries and expectations of behaviour. As they point out, why would the kids expect to get in trouble for hitting or swearing at a detention staff member if that sort of behaviour was condoned at home? Moreover, it was inspiring to see the transformation that the children underwent as they adapted to the routine of the detention centre and saw the benefits of regular education.

Another common aspect was the vulnerability that the juvenile offenders displayed. While it is easy to just see their violence and crime, the documentary showed that this is often the outer manifestations of deep seeded insecurities and that it is their way of seeking help. Often the carers and teachers in the detention centre are the first people to genuinely show care about the emotional wellbeing of the children and this can form the basis of their development as members of society.

The final key aspect for me was the role of education. Many of the staff commented that the detention centre was the first time many of the children had sustained classroom education. Being locked up they had little choice but to attend, however, once they started they quickly saw the benefits from improving their literacy and other skills. The show also demonstrated how these young criminals often had very low literacy levels and thus simplistic “name and shame” policies fail to recognise the importance of education to improving the chances of disadvantaged young people. In episode 2 it was particularly great to see how one of the very violent female offenders was able to get into college and used it as a way to escape the drugs and violence of her home in Wales.

Hopefully Jarrod Bleijie can take time out of his busy schedule locking up and embarrassing young people and watch an episode of this great documentary. By doing so he might gain an insight into the social conditions that lead to crime and not simply label juvenile offenders as never do wells. As the documentary shows, many juvenile offences are a result of society failing to properly care for and educate young people. While prison can sometimes provide the space for these young people to learn these skills and rehabilitate, it would be much smarter and cost efficient to ensure they get the help they need in the first place.

The Drum: Uninformed Nonsense on Education

An ill informed and poor source of debate on education

Tonight’s episode of The Drum on ABC24 is a classic example of what is wrong with the education debate within Australia. Hosted by former journalist Julia Baird, she asked the panel consisting of a politician, editor and ex-political advisor/journalist to comment on new Education Minister Christopher Pyne’s views about the need to review Australian history in schools.

Before we examine the issue, note the composition of the panel: they were all journalists and politicians. If they were to have a discussion about Iraq or Syria I’m sure they could locate an expert on Middle Eastern politics from a university and similarly a medical or technology expert on related matters. Come to think of it, I’m sure there are many teachers like myself or professors in education departments around Australia who would love to get that sort of air time. But no! This is only education after all and Julia’s reminiscence about an out dated history textbook are more than enough expertise to share around.

As such, the debate about the Australian history curriculum replayed old arguments about black arm band views on history with one panellist bemoaning the lack of Australian history in the Australian history curriculum. At least one of them had the decency to admit that he wasn’t an expert but he too had his input.

This is the core reason why education in Australia is going backwards and we are stuck in these old debates. Julia shouldn’t be looking at her textbook for out dated views: she should try the panel and her own views. Teachers are more professional and better trained than in the past and our history curriculum came about through a lengthy consultation process involving ACARA. Of course none of the guests could discuss this because the ABC couldn’t be bothered to get an actual expert on to discuss it. Instead, we have half-baked ideas from people who haven’t taught in a classroom or been a student in a high school classroom for a very long time.

If we want to have proper debates about education in Australia then get some educational experts in to discuss the matter. No one is saying that the history curriculum is perfect but please respect the PROFESSIONALISM and EXPERTISE of teachers by at least giving them primacy of opinion. While we continue to have educational debates run by rank amateurs like on the Drum then we will get nowhere. The attitude in Australia that teachers are not professional is only compounded by TV shows having such debates rather than seeking teacher input. It also makes our jobs that much harder because despite over 4 years of trainings, multiple post-graduate qualifications and more hours in a classroom than most of the people I speak to, almost all of them think they know as much about teaching as me.

Sorry to tell you Julia and the rest but YOU DON’T! When you come back with a teaching degree, have taught in a classroom for more than a few years and have worked full time in this demanding profession then feel free to lecture me on history curriculum and teaching. Until then, please treat me like the professional I am because I have the qualifications and experience to back up my opinion. Unlike you, who think common sense and “back in my day” arguments are better than research and practical experience, I know what I am talking about.

Shame on You!

An open letter to Queensland Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie

Jarrod pointing a generation of Queensland children to a life of crime

To Mr Jarrod Bleijie MP,

Your government took a disturbing step today in the fight against crime by announcing that you would bring in a policy to name and same repeat juvenile offenders in an effort to stop reoffending. On the outside this doesn’t seem like a bad idea but even a first year sociologist (or teacher of sociology such as myself) knows that this policy is far more dangerous that it sounds.

Firstly, the study of criminology is far more complicated than you are making out. Crime is not simply a joyful activity carried out by delinquent children that can be cured by a bit of community head shaking. Crime is a more deeply rooted social issue that often reflects a lack of education and care, with the criminals often committing crimes to meet basic needs such as food. While pretending to be tough on children by plastering their name all over the newspaper may win you votes with the uninformed, I expect politicians to make informed decisions that reflect expert advice rather than decisions that grab a good headline.

Secondly, the unintended consequence of this naming and shaming is to create a generation of kids who will only ever be criminals. I will put it as simply as I can so that you will understand: labelling someone a criminal majorly increases their chance of committing a crime. Moreover, according to sociology.about.com:

“Social research indicates that those who have negative labels usually have lower self-images, are more likely to reject themselves, and may even act more deviantly as a result of the label. Unfortunately, people who accept the labeling of others—be it correct or incorrect—have a difficult time changing their opinions of the labeled person, even in light of evidence to the contrary.”

Thus, you would like to condemn any repeat young offender in Queensland to a life of hardship because they will never be seen as anything but a criminal. What a way to stop crime: create a whole generation of criminals instead! Maybe they can rename Queensland the “Criminal State” as opposed to the “Sunshine State”.

Lastly, you clearly lack any sense of empathy. To deliberately shame someone is never helpful and can be very harmful. No one likes to feel a sense of shame, be it about a private or public act that we have done. That feeling of being less than you ought to be or acting in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable is never pleasant. I’m sure you have a memory or event that you can easily recall that makes you feel a sense of shame.

Spend a minute thinking about that memory.

Did you feel sick to the stomach? Did you wish you could relive that moment and make some better decisions? If you answered yes, then imagine living with that in a public way for the rest of your life.

So I hope you rethink your policy on naming and shaming young offenders. Any basic sociologist will tell you it is a bad idea and being a teacher it makes me sick to my stomach. It is clear that young criminals need our care and support not a public flogging to give you good headlines. Try implementing a policy that does this and it would be money well spent.

Yours sincerely,

James Purkis