Why banning technology is not the answer

There is something about human nature that draws us towards dichotomous patterns of thought; an all or nothing, us or them style of thinking in which an option is either good or it is bad. In such a model complexity and subtle nuance with multiple possible outcomes and routes towards a goal are ignored. The field of educational technology is one where such a pattern is evident and recent ban on technology by a Sydney school shows how this style of analysis can have a significant impact on student learning.

A ban on technology is an approach that is guaranteed to draw a response. Fortunately, perhaps most have quickly derided this move labelling the decision antiquated and out of touch with reality. Sugata Mitra tweeted ‘Here is how to get things completely wrong.’ and Julie Lindsay’s response is well worth reading.  Others have agreed with the decision and pointed towards student distractibility, online bullying and results on standardised assessment tests as indicators that such a ban is warranted. Beyond the hype of a ban on technology such a decision reveals a disappointing approach to education and learning that goes beyond the use of technology, a belief that learning is something that is intolerant of distraction.

Within the debate there are aspects of Dr Valance’s argument that have merit even if his response is misguided. Education is a social activity, driven by conversation and communication. Discussion, debate, argument, questioning and provocation are powerful elements of learning and an important part of what contributes to a dynamic and engaging learning environment. Where the argument falls down is when it is associated with a belief that the inclusion of technology in this mix will be to the detriment of a positive learning environment. The assumption is that access to ‘devices’ will be such a distraction that real learning will not occur.

To make this assertion a number of premises must be agreed to. Firstly, the face to face component must be seen as of lesser worth and be less engaging to the individuals than is the content delivered by their devices. It must also be accepted that it is not possible for content delivered by the device to be integrated with the face to face component and that it is not possible for this integration to add value. It must be accepted that other distractions such as a notepad, book or events taking place outside a window are significantly less than that presented by a device and that while we have developed strategies to manage other competing distractions we are incapable of managing distractions from devices.

Each of the premises upon which Dr Valance’s ban is predicated seem rather flawed. Surely high calibre teachers are capable of engaging students in discussion of topics so compelling that distractions of any nature are ignored. Our aim should be to build learning environments which are highly engaging, relevant and valued by all involved, if the learning is only relevant to the teacher then perhaps it should be changed or its significance to the students made clear. Understanding how our connected devices bring new opportunities to make connections beyond the four walls of our classrooms is an essential understanding to be developed. Effective teachers will show their students the power that such connections offer and encourage students to make full use of all of the tools at their disposal. As David Perkins of Harvard argues in ‘Future Wise’ digital tools should be included among the tools we use for learning. Connected devices should inject new opportunities, knowledge, data, influencers and thinking into our debates and add value not distraction.

The question of student distractibility is worth further exploration. The reality is that students have always found ways of distracting their attention from learning experiences that they have not valued. Passing notes, gazing out the window, doodling in the margins, reading a novel secreted under a desk, allowing the imagination to wander are past times every student has engaged in. Should we ban notepads in case students use the paper to pass notes? Do we ensure desks are clear of books which may cause distractions, walls clear of displays, windows covered by blinds all so that the students have no choice but to focus on us and to ensure that our lessons have nothing to compete with?

Much of this debate is centred around what has emerged as traditional uses of computers. This model sees our devices as replacements for existing modes of communication and as tools for accessing information. Texting, messaging, internet access and social chat are the limits of such a model. All of this has value and brings new opportunities for connectedness and collaboration on a global scale. But this model is limiting and limited in its understanding. Tracing back to Seymour Papert’s vision for computers within learning we see new opportunities for us to think about how we learn, how we think and how we construct knowledge. With the rise of algorithmic thinking, machine learning, artificial intelligence and an increasing need to understand how computers and networked data influences our decision making students need to move beyond using computers for content consumption or even creation and shift towards understanding how they function. As Papert asserts in Mindstorms ‘learning to communicate with a computer may change the way other learning takes place.’ (read more about ‘Computational Thinking')

Technology does not need to be a part of every aspect of our lives. We need to learn when it is the best tool, when it plays a part on the sidelines and when it is best left out of the equation. We need to see it as the tool that it is and understand how we may best use it to extend our capabilities. As teachers we need to reveal to our students how technology can assist their learning, how it can empower them and how it can if used inappropriately hinder. We need to understand the affordances of technology and utilise this knowledge to our student’s advantage allowing them to extend their learning beyond the classroom as they become connected learners. In doing these things we maximise student learning and ensure our students are prepared for the world beyond school. Blanket bans and oversimplifications of the debate around technology’s place serve no one except those fearful of a world where they as the teacher are no longer the centre of attention.

By Nigel Coutts

The Power of Teams

Sometimes it is worth stating the obvious, giving time and thought to what we easily take for granted. In doing so we name the things we value most and give them the value they deserve. The value of teams is one such ideal, we know that teams have value, we probably even know what it feels like to be a part of a great team but too often we take this feeling as understood and don’t stop to consider what makes it worth chasing.

Presently I have the pleasure of working with a great team of teachers within a strong Junior School. A team of teachers who inspires and challenges each other towards success and growth. We are a core group of five teachers with strong connections to a team of amazing specialists who work together to prepare our Year Six students for the challenges of Senior School while ensuring the students' experience of their final year in the junior School is memorable. We are a diverse set of individuals with varied backgrounds, strengths, interests and personalities. As a team we are able to act as a cohesive unit with a shared understanding that allows us to take differing patch to the same destination.

Collectively we are united in a love of learning. We each enjoy the opportunities that new situations bring to us and we know that we have much to learn. We also understand that we each have things that we can teach each other and this ensures a mutual respect that is genuine. This love of learning and valuing of our collective wisdom is evident in our approach to problem solving and planning. No one person has the answer, no one voice need dominate, the best answer is the one that emerges in response to the problem. Daniel Wilson, of Harvard describes this as ‘Emergent Leadership’ where the wisdom of the group is the key to solving complex problems. This property of an effective team is perhaps the one most frequently missing and one that is most required if education is to transform itself to meet the challenges of a post-industrial revolution era.

As a team we also understand that there is a job to be done and that it can be no single person’s responsibility to do it. A week at camp showed how this value within a team can triumph even when things don’t quite follow the game plan. Working within a team where everyone is accountable and everyone understands the importance of their actions allows for distributed leadership to take hold. Tasks no longer need be assigned because the team will identify the needs and take the appropriate actions. For this to happen every member of the team needs to have agency to take action and not feel they need to play a game of 'guess what the boss wants’. Agency within teams is critical for their success.

The culture of a great team is infectious and will be naturally inclusive of new members. For our camp the team grew from five to over twenty and yet the culture of the core team remained and spread. Our enthusiasm caught on and the team was able to incorporate new members without effort because we all knew where we were going and how we would get there. Culture triumphs policy and a strong team culture based on trust and respect is supreme.

When working in a great team, leadership can almost disappear. Observe a group of people working together and if it is clear who is in charge you are most likely watching a manager at work. In great teams where the value of every member is equally respected the leadership is distributed, the team is able to function towards its goal with little direction and the results are phenomenal. With a great team the productivity will far exceed what a well managed team can ever hope to produce as every individual contributes their very best and no one is waiting for the next set of instructions.

Great teams value each others success and share responsibility for mistakes. Effective teams understand that mistakes happen as a part of the learning process and the only way to avoid them is to never try anything new; clearly not a viable option. Great teams also acknowledge the success of individuals and understand that when a team member achieves success it reflects well on the whole team. If your team members are doing well it is a sure sign of a healthy team, celebrate the success.

Effective teams understand that team members have lives beyond the team. Empathy and understanding are the cornerstones of great teams and supporting each other with the challenges that life throws your way is essential. Every team member will have differing needs and understanding that and respecting the complexity of our modern lives allows teams to be supportive of each other beyond the confines of the workplace. It is not always about the job, sometimes a team needs time to stop and talk about life, the conflicts the craziness and the things that make us human.

Lastly and perhaps most difficult, teams build the capacity of their members and that means sometimes creating the conditions that allow team members to move on to new and bigger challenges. Learning and personal growth is important and part of the process that all tams go through and the eventual result is that team membership will change as members seek new experiences and challenges beyond the team or their present situation. In a great team the need for a change of scenery is lessened by the opportunities inherent to the teams functioning but building the capacity of individuals members and the collective capacity of the team are essential elements.

If you are part of a great team cherish it and take the time to name and value what makes it great. Amazing teams do not happen by accident and maintaining their spirit is the responsibility of every member.

 

By Nigel Coutts

Beyond consumer based ICT

There is a change taking place in how schools approach ICT, one that has been coming for some time but is at the point of moving into the mainstream. A subtle but powerful shift that sees ICT build connections with the Maker Movement as a tool for solving what Bronwyn Moreton speaking at the ICT Educators of NSW conference describes as the ‘I wish it would . . .’ moment where a learner discovers that their technology doesn’t do everything they wished it would.

For a long time, ICT in the classroom was a mix of internet based information tools, some desktop publishing and for the adventuresome multimedia design, video and photo editing. This placed the user for the most part as a consumer of content or a user of software packages and more recently Apps. The skills required of these users would be found in user manuals and tutorials and revolved around learning the particular idiosyncrasies of various pieces of software. Skill with Microsoft Office, internet browser and Apples iLife suite of tools for video and photo management would suffice for the majority of users. With the rise of tablet computers such as iPad, Android tablet and Microsoft Surface the App economy has driven the required skill set down further as ICT moves firmly into the consumer device market.

This was not always the case. In computing’s early days when Steve Wozniak was a member of the ‘Homebrew’ computing club it was about problem solving to get the hardware and software to do what you wanted it to. Computer Geeks blended the skills of electrical engineers with software developers to get the early machines to power on. Computing at this time involved manipulating the core components of breadboards, processors, inputs and outputs all of which is well hidden from view in modern machines which are tightly focused on a pleasing 'out of box' experience. But as attendees at the ICTE NSW conference saw repeatedly a change is coming, we are moving back to tinkering with the hardware. Coding and electrical engineering are opening new opportunities.

Recognising the need for young people to understand computer coding and seeing a gap in the available software MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) developed Scratch. The aim is to provide a simple coding environment that allows students to literally assemble blocks of code in a digital environment in much the same way that they would assemble wooden blocks in the physical world. The drag and drop nature and friendly block design makes coding readily accessible and the user gets immediate feedback on their designs. Many students have been introduced to coding thanks to Scratch and others have followed a similar path with tools becoming available for all major platforms. The trouble with Scratch is that at some point learners will need something more and traditional response is to move on to more involved coding solutions such as Python.

There is an alternative route however. Move the students on from Scratch to using it to programme physical devices that they create using Arduino. The beauty of Arduino is that it allows low cost access to hardware that encourages user developed code. Arduino boards are a system on a chip meaning that the whole computer is on one board and to this you can connect other components such as lights, sensors, motors and speakers to give the system additional functionality. With Arduino the students are not just using a computer they are making and programming it. Arduino is just one of the ways that physical computing is making a come back. Other players include Raspberry Pi which was one of the first system on a chip type computers to grab the attention of the mainstream thanks to its low price point and functionality that matches many computers from as little as five years ago. Raspberry Pi gives its users access to fully functioning operating systems from the Linux environment and the latest versions will run Windows 10. The low cost and bare bones nature of the Raspberry Pi encourages tinkering in ways that laptops and desktops don’t.

Another way into this world of physical computing is through robotics. This is an area where the benefits are coming from increased consumerisation of robots and the availability of ready to go robots. This removes barriers to entry and allows younger users to experience what is possible with a programmable robot. Children in Prep Schools can use Apps like Scratch and Blockly to programme a robot and see immediately the effects that their code has on the robot’s movement. At more advanced levels students are able to design complex code that integrates feedback from the robot’s sensors with logical operators. As student expertise moves beyond the capabilities of consumer robots there is cope for them to use combinations of Arduino and Raspberry Pi type computers with sensors and motors to create bespoke robots of their own design.

As is the case with the whole Maker Movement the spirit of sharing and collaboration ensure that a rich support network has evolved. For those with a passion for tinkering with computers this support network is bound to answer your questions. Having spent a Sunday learning with some of the ICT educators of NSW this willingness to share expertise and learn collaboratively was most evident in everyone I spoke with. For teacher and learners beginning their journey into physical computing and coding there is no need to be alone.

 

By Nigel Coutts

Hold your ideas lightly

The history of teaching is littered with ideas that have come and gone. In their day each was the new bright hope, set to transform what we do as teachers and how our students learn. Each new idea had its supporters and detractors and each in turn was replaced by an alternative or simply disappeared from view. Those who have experienced this ebb and flow of ideas have learned to approach the shiny and the new with caution and yet we have all encountered ideas that are so compelling it is difficult to ignore. How might we approach new ideas and innovative practices in ways that ensure our students benefit?

Effective schools and teachers engage in a process of action research even if it is not thusly named. It is a process that can be as simple as identifying a need, imagining or identifying a solution, putting it into action and observing the results. Applied as a methodology for improving practice through cycles of research, implementation, evaluation and reflection it can provide valid research data. A key benefit of action research is that it is closely linked to practice and involves practitioners as researchers ensuring a close connection between the research and its implementation. In action research it is very likely that those implementing the new strategy will have a solid understanding of its research basis, the problem it aims to address and the result it should achieve.

Action research fits nicely into a design thinking approach. There is much in common between the two methods and one could see design thinking as a structure for action research. At the core of both approaches is the identification of a problem the development of a planned response, the implementation of the plan and deliberate reflection. Both should include opportunities to adjust the plan at various points and when looked at as a cycle it should be clear that the process need not be linear or have a set end point. Fluid movement between action, evaluation, planning and questioning phases allows both action research and design thinking to respond to discoveries mid cycle and for adjustments to be made.

For the evaluation of new ideas both models hold real advantages. Thinking outside the box is all very well but thinking is best when it has a degree of structure and some level of organisation and it is this that action research and design thinking provide. For collaborative efforts the structure provided and the labels attached to various phases of the process can help team members identify where they are in their endeavour and where they are headed next. A key ingredient is that in these models the process is highly iterative in nature and the ideal solution or even the clear articulation of the problem is not likely to occur with the first cycle. Understanding the iterative nature of action research or design thinking is critical for success and a contributing factor for long term group cohesion.

The sharing of ideas with colleagues is for many a process not undertaken lightly. The more of our individuality, passion and effort that is invested in the idea the harder this process of sharing can be. We want our ideas to be understood, appreciated and accepted. When we contribute ideas to an action research process it is natural to hope that they will be included in the groups planning. Feelings of disappointment when they are not are natural but this is not a productive response within an iterative process. We need to hold our ideas lightly.

Those of us empowered by a growth mindset are perhaps more open to sharing our ideas. If our idea is not what the group is looking for we are able to move quickly on to the next idea without a negative reaction. Our ability to let go of our ideas decreases as our commitment to them increases and this commitment is directly related to the time, effort and emotion we have invested. To this end Ewan Macintosh urges us to share our ideas early, before we are too committed to them to listen to constructive feedback. If we share early, at a point where the idea is developed sufficiently to be understood by others who can provide us with feedback we may be more open to incorporating these new perspectives into our thinking.

Sharing early requires more than individuals who are open to the idea, it must be backed by a culture that accepts ideas should be shared before they are fully baked. Such a culture accepts that ideas might have rough edges, missing details, errors and imperfections. Such a culture is a natural fit with action research as it is one that encourages ideas to be tested and worked on without fear of failure. If the culture of a place is not accepting of failure in its action research efforts, it is not possible to try truly innovative ideas and efforts at safe innovation are unlikely to produce significant changes worthy of the effort. Fear of failure amongst individuals on action research will produce other negative consequences such as group think where divergent ideas are kept private and staff fall into patterns of trying to guess what their supervisor wants them to contribute.

One effective strategy for action research within larger organisations can be to trial multiple competing solutions at once with teams testing different approaches to a common problem. This connects nicely to an iterative process and can accelerate the research process as multiple options are tested and understood in parallel. It can also unlock our competitive natures when the ideas are compared and evaluated. A clear understanding, that it is the idea being assessed and not the individuals who researched its application, is essential. In cases such as this teams must hold their ideas lightly and accept that ultimately not all ideas will transfer into policy or future practice.

A willingness to hold our ideas lightly may also help avoid the scenario where the ultimate solution is a hybrid of multiple ideas formed not for its best fit to the problem but as a compromise between divergent groups. A willingness to let go of parts or all of our idea and accept that it may not offer the best solution is not easy but a necessary step towards maximising the benefits of action research. Perhaps hardest of all is letting go of our ideas when we are the ones who must make the decision. For leaders this is part of the job; a willingness to accept ideas from all channels will allow us to respond in the best possible way and to select the right path even when it is not the path we had envisioned. The capacity of an organisation’s leadership to share ideas early, listen to feedback and respond accordingly will have a powerful effect on the organisation’s culture and ability to innovate.

In the spirit of holding my ideas lightly I invite comments or feedback on how this article may be improved or why it should be deleted. I look forward to the discussion.

By Nigel Coutts

 

The new concrete materials for mathematics

Since the time of Cuisenaire rods or before that counters and buttons students have benefitted from the use of concrete materials in their mathematical learning. The combination of strong visuals and the ability to physically manipulate groups of objects has allowed students to move from purely physical representations of number concepts to increasingly abstract representations. This pattern of first experiencing a concept in the physical world before shifting towards symbolic representations has allowed countless students to grasp the fundamentals of mathematics. Effective teachers have always been able to maximise the benefits of this pattern ensuring that their students can not only produce the right answer but have a solid understanding of the mathematics behind it. 

In the age of computers and now tablets there have been many efforts to transfer this effective learning pattern into the digital world. Skeuomorphic representations that take digital renderings of real world objects and place them onto screens for manipulation through the computer interface have had some success in this area but an additional layer of abstraction is added that purely physical manipulations lack. Shifting the physical objects into the digital world may bring new affordances to the devices used but fail to transform the learning that was already possible with concrete materials. What was needed was a relationship between the digital and the physical that would enhance the quality of learning possible. With new tools such as easily coded robots, augmented reality and 3D printing this is a possibility that is beginning to emerge. 

One interesting option is the iPad system and related Apps made available by ‘Osmo’. In this the camera on the iPad is reconfigured to capture images from the area immediately in front of the device as it sits in a stand. The software allows for virtual objects on the iPad screen to appear to interact with objects placed or drawn in front of it. One of the Apps available presents the challenge of manipulating the trajectory of a virtual ball using objects placed or drawn in the real world space in front of the device. Students learn through an iterative process of altering angles of incidence and by adding or removing objects how the trajectory of an object can be altered. The software allows for complex interactions to be simulated and tested with immediate feedback provided on the screen. Other Apps allow students to manipulate Tangrams with added benefits occurring as a result of the augmented reality. Another App bridges the gap between the physical and the abstract by allowing students to manipulate real objects while the device reveals the associated abstract representations. Osmo brings an added dimension compared to purely digital Apps that attempt to do the same thing as its physical dimension invites collaboration. Students will want to sit and play with the physical objects and though the manipulations of these experience gradually increasing levels of engagement with symbolic representations.  

Learn more about Osmo

Sphero is another interesting way to take mathematics out of the digital world and allow it to blend with the physical. Sphero is a small spherical robot that can be controlled directly using a phone or tablet, can be programmed or can be used as a controller or interactive object with augmented reality games. Beyond the fun that comes from using Sphero like a remote controlled toy is the potential to use it to explore concepts within mathematics. This process is likely to begin with lessons that require students to programme their Sphero to complete a maze. Constructed on the floor with tape, cardboard or with a mixture of made and found obstacles mazes allow students to explore aspects of measurement of length, area, angles, time and speed. Unlike purely digital solutions that target these concepts Sphero brings a real connection between the code and the movement of the robot. Students engaging with Sphero will take measurements in the real world with traditional tools such as metre rules and protractors (preferably oversized ones), use that information in the digital code environment and then make adjustments based on the path taken by the robot. Again success is supported through an iterative approach with immediate and natural feedback. These feedback loops where the students are quickly shown what works and what does not are judgment free and ensure continued engagement with the problem and with each failed attempt revealing something new about the task while allowing the students to laugh at their robots misadventures. That students are learning to code while they are developing their understanding of mathematical concepts is further bonus. Beyond the maze activities are options for an exploration of how the robot may be programmed to complete artistic pieces that combine its movement and ability to change colours into robotic ballets that could include collaborations with other robots.  

Learn more about SPHERO

You can’t mention links between digital worlds and physical reality without mentioning 3D printing. For explorations in STEAM the increasingly affordable 3D printer brings the opportunity to design objects in a physical world and then print a real model that the students can hold. So many mathematical concepts from mass, volume, capacity, scale, ratio, and 3D shape can be explored in this way and links across key learning areas can be readily explored. For design thinking tasks the potential to have a physical prototype of an idea brings a tangible dimension that reveals ideas in new ways showing how imaginings in the virtual world translate into the real world. Increased accuracy of 3D printers is allowing for objects with great precision which means it is possible to print parts of machines with moving and interlocking cogs. Software is available now that will show how these moving parts will interact in a virtual world thus enabling testing of designs in this space prior to printing.  

In each case here there is a linking of learning in a digital space with the manipulation of creation of real world objects. instead of moving further away from the use of concrete objects blended environments suggest that mathematics teaching may be most successful when a mix of digital and physical is enabled. It may not be time to throw away those Cuisenaire rods and oversized set squares just yet, they may have a new part to play in the emerging terrain of mathematical learning.  

 

By Nigel Coutts

 

Revealing our Lifelong Learning

Few would argue that life-long learning is an unworthy goal without real benefits for our long term mental health and happiness. Engaging with new ideas, concepts and ways of doing things is the ideal strategy for a healthy mind and a disposition towards better understanding the world and challenging our entrenched beliefs. According to many life-long learning is also an essential disposition for coping with a rapidly changing world. As teachers the notion of life-long learning has an additional element as it is both a personal goal and one that we set as an outcome of our teaching. We hope that our students will leave school with a desire to continue learning long after we have said our farewells. Perhaps the best way we may achieve these goals is to allow our students to see us as learners who seek new learning and enjoy the challenges that this brings.

During the summer holidays I enjoy taking on a project. With long days and free time available a project has been the perfect way to keep productive while learning a new skill set. A chance to do something I would not normally do as part of my teaching routine. This break I have been constructing wooden workbenches and even though it has been a project for school it is one that has challenged my minimal carpentry skills. I have mastered the shaping of mortise and tenon joints (having cut eighty of them), developed an appreciation of applying repeatable processes and enhanced my understanding of the properties of different timbers. I have aimed to make each workbench slightly different and this has led to some creative re-purposing of materials and storage containers. Each bench has something that it makes a little bit unique and quirky and each includes elements that should make it a functional combination of storage and workspace. Hopefully when they are placed into classrooms the students enjoy using them and they encourage some effective making. I also hope that over time the students adapt them to their needs and add ideas of their own.

Part way through this process I read an article by John Spencer on his Blog in which he argues that ‘Teachers need a genius hour, Too’. Such a concept is an ideal way to tackle the challenge of being a life-long learner amidst the business of our lives. The key is that it is time set into our schedule and it is for us to achieve learning important to us. John stipulates that this time is not to be used for anything work related, that it is time dedicated towards personal learning not professional development. John describes how his family has been able to make adjustments to accommodate this time and ensure it is a part of their schedule. Just as for students the choosing of what this time is used for is an important element of its success. It is interesting that an idea that started with adults working in industry has migrated into schools and is now being appropriated by teachers in their personal life.

Spending time on Twitter reveals a small ocean of people who are engaging with their personal learning and sharing its benefits through their networks. The value of our personal learning networks is a combination of avenues for sharing our learning and for engaging with the learning others have undertaken. Social media has opened new realms of shared experiences around and through learning but much of it occurs away from where it may be spotted by our students. There is a danger our well crafted personal learning networks serve to reinforce the notion that we are experts who know the right way to solve any challenge we face in the classroom without the need to learn. If only our students saw how hard we work behind the scenes to learn and enhance our craft.

If we want our learning habits to rub off on our students then we need to ensure they catch us in the act of learning and that we describe our processes for learning to them. Metacognitive reflection on our teaching practice is all very nice but it is more likely to influence our students if we share the process with them. For this to happen we need to move past the fear that if we are not seen as experts with all the right answers chaos will ensue. This challenge extends to school leaders who should be encouraged to share their stories of learning with their teams without fear that they will be viewed poorly for admitting they are continuing to learn and develop.

In an environment that encourages a growth mindset it may be essential that students see their teachers struggling to overcome challenges. Talks about the need to embrace failure and to see obstacles as a learning opportunity seem hollow unless they are linked to personal experience. Bringing stories of our personal learning into the classroom adds a new dimension and honesty to our discussion of how we may best attack challenges. Letting our students see us struggle with a challenging problem takes this to a higher level, allowing them to offer suggestions goes even further to sharing the reality of a shared learning environment.

Google is widely cited as starting the trend of giving staff time for personal projects. Their ‘20% Time’ model has been copied and borrowed widely as a way of encouraging people to pursue projects they are passionate about but not at the core of their responsibility. In schools this type of personal learning could be the way to allow students to see their teachers learning and problem solving. Just as we may model reading habits during quiet reading times, taking on a Personal Passion Project in parallel to our students may bring new opportunities for shared learning and a greater appreciation of the benefits of life-long learning.

 

By Nigel Coutts

Lessons Learned from Genius Hour

After eight years of engaging our students with a Personal Passion Project during Term Four we shifted to a ‘Genius Hour’ model for 2015. In the end the results from the students were impressive but along the way some lessons were learned and we are looking forward to making some minor tweaks for 2016 that should further enhance the learning opportunities. What remains clear is that students given the opportunity to bring their passions into the classroom produce results that go above and beyond expectation. It has also been obvious that success is linked to the establishment of conditions that encourage risk taking and reinforce the importance of learning and design as an iterative experience.

The key difference from previous years was that students started their projects late in Term One and had time each week during Terms Two, Three and Four to develop and then implement their plans. An hour was allocated in the timetable for this and we were able to have all five Year Six classes working on their Genius Hour projects at the same time. This allowed opportunities to combine as a year and to share ideas across classes thus creating opportunities for students to share ideas with colleagues who had a common interest. It also allowed us to invite guest speakers to visit the Year Group and share ideas from their careers. To facilitate this, we reached out to our school community and had offers of support from project managers, technologists and graphic designers. Each visiting expert added a new dimension and deeper understanding of the process that the students would be engaging with while revealing the real-world applications of what the students were doing; finding questions, imagining solutions, developing plans and managing projects.

Early on we introduced students to the importance of finding the right project to explore. To do this they needed to identify their personal passion and then connect this with a question that had real significance. We introduced students to ‘A More Beautiful Question’ as a resource and shared examples of questions that led to the discovery of new ways of solving challenges. With an understanding of the process and the seed of an idea students spent the next few weeks planning their projects. In keeping with the application of a ‘Design Thinking’ approach these plans remained open to change throughout the year and the final products and solution in many cases showed significant diversions from what was originally imagined. Understanding that this is inevitable is something we will cover in our initial introductions for 2016.

The diversity of student projects was one of the highlights. We had a number of students who selected projects connected with novel writing and the results were impressively evolved and interesting works of fiction. A group of students with an interest in fashion and fabric crafts emerged and supported each other in the process of learning to sew. While their projects had some common elements differences in approach and desired result showed the complexity of the projects the students imagine. We are fortunate to have expertise in this area amongst our staff and are able to call on specialist teachers from our Senior School to fill in the gaps. More importantly the projects create real learning opportunities for all involved as problems emerge and solutions are discovered through a collaborative learning experience. The danger of teacher expertise stomping on student discovery never became an issue partly due to careful teaching practice in not revealing the answer too early in the process but also through a genuine need for shared learning that resulted from the originality of the projects.

Some rather unique projects emerged and presented interesting learning opportunities. One boy wanted to construct a set of shin guards that would combine fiberglass and foam to offer an increased level of protection and comfort. With no prior experience of using fiberglass, teacher and student had to combine our learning skills to discover a process that would work. Plans were made and changed, and evolved as we experimented with options and relied on internet sources to discover a workable solution. In the end he had a pair of shin pads that met his original expectations and show promise as a new design. Another novel project was a dog sitting service loosely modelled after ‘Air BnB’ that through a website connects people requiring dog minding with people willing to provide such a service in their homes. The aim is to provide pet minding services in locations where there is presently nothing available and at a low cost.

A number of students took on artistic projects. One of the standouts was a book of candid portraits taken of students as they worked in class. The portraits reveal the subjects’ characters and emotions as they engage with their learning and were beautifully presented in a printed book. One student imagined a tree made of recycled chop-sticks. This project took on rather massive proportions and involved hundreds if not thousands of carefully washed and assembled chop-sticks. Other projects included photographic collages, hand crafted lamp shades and a collection of purses woven from plastic shopping bags. We had students working on electronics projects, go carts and a snowboard adapted for use on a trampoline.

With all of this making happening it became clear that we were a little unprepared from a tool and resource perspective. This will be partly solved for 2016 with the creation of a Makerspace with enhanced access to the resources required. We will also have a set of tools and a mobile workbench available for each of our Year Six classes. These additional resources will bring a need to up-skill the students in the use of new tools but should also allow them to imagine new solutions. Understanding what is possible is one area that some students have struggled with in the past so we plan to include an introduction to making as part of our planning process for the future.

For some students the process of implementing their plans presented new challenges. Obstacles and failed prototypes were not always seen as a step towards success. This demonstrated the importance of understanding that design is an iterative process with failure as a necessary and unavoidable component. Such experiences bring opportunities for a practical application of our ongoing conversations about the benefits of a ‘Growth Mindset’. A benefit here was that the making process provides inherent feedback as to what doesn’t work. The challenge has been to establish a culture that supports experimentation with a suitable expectation of quality. The expectation of quality was supported by the looming reality that the projects would be presented to a real audience at the end of year ‘Gallery Walk’.

Throughout the year we were able to make some little tweaks to the way that ‘Genius Hour’ functioned. One was that we were able to add extra time in Term Four beyond the prescribed hour and this allowed students to spend longer blocks of time on their project works. The planning process we had imagined did not suit all students and this was modified and adapted as we went. For 2016 we plan to further modify our use of this time with students completing three projects throughout the year rather than one. Students will begin with a short research based project in Term One in which they select the topic and method of presentation. In Term Two students will explore through de-construction a product of their choice and then collaboratively design an improved version. With these two self managed projects behind them students should be well prepared for a larger scale project in Term Three and will again benefit from additional time in Term Four to complete their ideas.

With each iteration we learn more about the inclusion of Design Thinking, student passions and project based learning within our yearly programme. Each year the students amaze us with what they produce and they leave us with greatly enhanced confidence in their abilities to manage difficult and complex learning experiences. Running a ‘Genius Hour’ project can at times be exhausting and messy and challenging for all involved. The pay off is a learning experience on a grand scale that provides a solid platform for future growth.

By Nigel Coutts

With thanks to Clare McPhillips, Amber Bidwell, Jo Robinson & Jake Turnbull