Students need to learn how to learn. Teachers need to teach students how to learn.

"Students need to learn how to learn. Teachers need to teach students how to learn." 

This was a quote discussed at a recent PLG . I had to agree. But what is it that students need to learn in order to know how to learn? And in some cases, what is it that teachers might need to learn so they know how to teach students how to learn?

One answer to that second question is that a teacher might need to learn how to change their practice, step aside a little and observe rather than lead what is happening. Sometimes it's scary taking a step back and seeing what happens when you're not quite so helpful and not controlling everything that is going on. Sometimes students show you that they clearly have no idea of what to do, what they're really learning or how to progress. Isn't that wonderful? How powerful it is to find out what a student can and can't do without you leading them all the way. You now know more about that learner and gain clarity on their learning.

I wonder if all students already know how to learn? They spent 5 years learning before they came to school, they're obviously capable of learning a number of things. I wonder if sometimes that some students simply feel they have to hand over their learning and simply become passive rather than active learners. It's those students who need to re-learn how to learn and how to be active participants in their learning journey.

Fortunately, most students I encounter are active life long learners. My job is to get out of their way and let them guide their own learning.

Self guided learning...for everyone.

What I have realised about my own professional learning over the past 5 years as a Principal is that I have had the opportunity to be self-guiding. I have become a life long learner through this opportunity. No-one delivers my professional learning on a plate. I design my own learning based on what I see and hear happening at our school. It covers a wide range of areas from responding to student achievement information through to developing my leadership practice. I have to read widely and talk with others to develop my knowledge and my learning. I seek it. I find it.

This is what I want for my staff and I'm trying to "unbundle" existing practice. (Thanks Rachel Bolstad et al for that term) My take on this is one where the Principal decides what staff need and a plan is developed that will see all staff participate in a professional development programme over 12 months. Teaching as Inquiry has a strong emphasis on teachers developing knowledge and practice based on the learning needs of their learners. Even though a school wide need might be identified, because teachers all have different previous experiences and knowledge, they start in different places and therefore will finish in different places.Is it a bit naive to think that school wide PD is going to meet all these needs? I'm not a big fan of the "sheep drench" approach to PD. At best, these types of sessions are a 'spark' or a catalyst for them to experience and perhaps further persue. Expecting automatic pick up of a "one size fits all" approach is unrealistic at best and frustrating at worst.

I'm giving opportunities for staff to develop their own professional learning by making funds available that they can use for texts, for study, for travel, for what they need for their own learning. I'm encouraging them to get out there and see what's happening and what's possible. I want the teachers at our school to have a personalised experience. I want them to have choices about their professional learning so that their needs are better met. I want to provide them with the same opportunity I have had. To be self-guiding. I want to take this further. I'm considering optional meetings/workshops - come along if this interests you or if it might complement your current learning. I'm not sure if that approach would work or not. It's a big shift from our current set up.

I'm not exactly sure that I know how to proceed. I've asked staff for their ideas and input into how they like to learn and there certainly seems that opportunities for self-guiding professional learning is desirable. I'm considering how teaching as inquiry can guide us to personalise professional learning further. I'm reading a lot of material that relates to professional learning and creating "teacher agency" and clarifying my thoughts through this post. Your thoughts and ideas are welcome.

How one small change can transform outcomes..

To get a feel for what I mean, watch the following clip... The collaborators on this project didn't tell people to use the stairs - they gave them a reason to want to use them and the way they did it was through fun which led to engagement and motivation. If we want to bring about different outcomes, we will need to make changes! Here's a short clip from Ken Shelton's ulearn13 keynote address on change. I need to underline the point he makes here, it's not necessarily a massive change that could bring about different outcomes for learners. In the example above, the stairs were not ripped out or taken away, but something was added to them to make a the change that was required. (I'm thinking now of how the SAMR model applies...) In looking through edtalks there are lots of excellent examples where teachers have made changes to an aspect of their practise and the outcomes for students have gone way beyond what the teacher could have ever imagined. Here are some examples that could provide inspiration for others:
Newsboard for the 21st century from EDtalks on Vimeo.
It's a great idea from Laetitia - all classrooms have cameras in them - use them! Checking out her Hauora TV is quite inspiring with 5 year olds interviewing and presenting. And how lucky are the parents of those parents to have such an open window into their children's classroom. This travel buddies idea is a small change from what a lot of new entrant teachers might do with a class toy or mascot that goes home with students, but rather than a written diary that comes back to the teacher and might be shared with the class, this takes the same idea to a whole new level. And Emma Watts talking about engaging struggling writers: What we have here are a number of examples where changes have been made to existing practise that have led to exciting outcomes for students.

From Professional to Personalised Learning Development.

I know some others are thinking along the same lines as me on this one. Here are my thoughts. In as much as we are attempting to personalise the learning experience for our students, we've continued to use the "drenching" method for PLD. All teachers getting the same thing from  a lead teacher or consultant, whether they want it or not and whether they're ready for it or not. What this type of approach fails to recognise is that while we're all working in the same place, we've each had quite unique experiences prior to being here.
Just like the students in our classrooms. And what do good teachers do about this? They personalise the learning experience in that classroom. What should a good Principal do? The same.

So - in thinking about 2014 (and we've already discussed this quite a bit) I am wondering how teachers can maximise their experience with their Teaching as Inquiry. We've got the process well embedded and we have differing needs in our classes now. Some teachers are better equipped at knowing what to do next with their learners.
My current thinking is to do away with the "drench" method and replace it with something more personalised, where teachers develop their own plan for "learning development".

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone already doing this at their school and what the outcomes/experiences have been for the teaching staff.

Innovation or Improvement?

I'm the first person to think that some things need to change. In fact, status quo usually annoys me. For years I've been saying that schools haven't kept pace with change. Students have changed. Parents have changed. Community has changed. Have we kept pace with this in our schools? And what changes or innovations are necessary?

Earlier in the year I commented that it would be easy for schools to invest money in buying new furniture and making classrooms look different without actually tending to the matters that would really bring about any necessary change. It's certainly something that I have had to resist doing.  Perhaps having a new setup might effect change in some classrooms. If not every child had their own table to work at, somethings would change. New furniture does not equal change though. Sitting on a stool is really not that different to sitting on a chair. These elements are "surface features" to use the writing matrix analaogy.

So what of the "deeper features"? I was interested in Vivianne Robinson's comment at the NZPF conference that Innovation refers to something new or novel. "Novo" means new. She used Novopay as an example of where not all change and innovation is inherently good. She says we need to aim for Improvement.

What is it we need to improve on then to meet the needs of the 21st century learner? How is this connected to the learning spaces that exist in most New Zealand schools (single cell classrooms).
To work within these existing structures we need to improve student ability in collaborating, in learning about learning and students being active in their learning, as opposed to it happening TO them.

Innovations need to be carefully considered. Will it actually bring about the improvements that you need or want, or is it just change for the sake of change? Is it up to the Principal of a school to "inflict" change on teachers and their classes or should the changes come from within?

I'm thinking less about the furniture and more about teaching practice.

The generation gap - is it all bad news?

Last night there was an item on a national "current affairs" programme showing babies using ipads and all the pitfalls of children growing up with digital devices. This is a fairly typical response and they referred to "generation conflict" whereby each generation thinks they got it right and this was evident when a comment was made by a viewer that generation alpha (those born after 2010) will probably not have the social skills that his generation has. I have been thinking about this and while I'm not a supporter of babies being raised by an ipad, what I have seen in my own two children who are 19 and 16 is quite a different set of skills to my own. I wouldn't necessarily say that their social skills are poorer than mine or my parents. In fact I believe the opposite is true.

 I am amazed at the number and range of friendships that my children have. Social media enables them to stay in touch, to connect and communicate in ways that simply weren't possible when I was a child. Picking up the phone to talk to someone outside of your city used to be a big deal. Now I skype with my son in Auckland from my smart phone. Easy. Regular. Nice. Watching my son put together a flat in Auckland with three others in other cities all from his laptop was amazing to see over the summer. Trade me, facebook and a few skype calls and they were done.
 My 16 year old daughter is even more into it. Tumblr and facebook enable her to share and follow her interests. She has friends in other countries and places all over NZ.

 Students at my school connect with me via google chat and email, as well as popping into my office from time to time. I like being accessible to everyone. The student who is too shy to come to me in person might chat with me or send a quick email. Long gone are the days of the Principal being the inaccessible person at the top. My students see me as being someone they can talk with and share ideas - great voice within our school from our students.

So, I don't see the skill set in socialising diminishing, I see it as being different. For students to succeed in a global workplace they're going to need the skills I see happening in our classrooms each day and those happening outside of school too.

 http://tvnz.co.nz/seven-sharp/generation-alpha-might-expect-video-5457668

Is googling "low level"

There was a tweet a while ago challenging students to come up with questions that were "non-googleable". I think this is great. Real researchers go out and talk to people, do surveys and collect data and information from a range of sources. I strongly encourage this practise with students . Now there is a circle of thought that "googling" is low level - and of this I am not so sure. Students have always come up with questions and traditionally gone straight to the library, found a book (or 2 or 3 if you have a good library) and then copied information or taken notes etc to explain their findings. Google has merely sped up the process. As long as students are accessing websites of merit, or being discerning in their use of the information they have found - then nothing has really changed. So to say that googling is low level stuff, means that all research work like this has also been low level. Of that I am not convinced. Students knowing how to use key words and to find information from a range of sources requires a fair amount of knowledge and skills. In fact, being able to sort the huge amount of information available at the ir finger tips, from a google search, possibly means that students are required to be even more sophisticated in their use of information these days, than previously. While I support the thinking behind asking questions that can't be answered by a google search, I still believe that students need to get good at searching and using information made available from a web search. We are looking into how SOLE (self organising learning environments)can be implement ed in our Year 3-8 classes. We already have self-directed learning occurring in various forms. With SOLE being introduced we have a common system and this is kicking off in term 2. I am looking forward to seeing what occurs and talking with teachers about what we see from our students.