Tinkering with Old Technology

As technology evolves and its inner workings increasingly disappear from view, replaced with solid-state parts hidden by glass, aluminium and plastic, our understanding of what makes the world operate is similarly impeded. When machinery from just a few decades ago is viewed a world of moving parts, linkages, cogs and levers is revealed. These mechanical objects contain an inherent beauty and inspire curiosity in ways that modern devices with their pristine surfaces and simplified design language do not. Opportunities to explore devices from the past open our eyes and lead us to new questions of how our devices function, how machines do the jobs we need them to do and how engineers solve problems.

I visited a museum of such devices recently. A small museum of carefully and lovingly curated items collected by a small group of engineers, now retired. It is an important collection that reveals how the technology from which our modern devices have evolved. It shows an evolutionary journey from typewriters to mainframe computers and on to devices that resemble the computers we use today. It includes examples of different engine types, milling equipment and pieces of equipment barely recognisable today that were once the very cutting edge. There are tools and instruments for measuring, samples of materials, sets of paper tape codes for early CNC (computer numerical control) machines and an array of storage mediums all of which have been eclipsed in capacity. Each item reveals its inner workings and inspires questions and inquiries as to what purpose it served and how it functioned. The beauty of each piece, its design aesthetic and the attention to detail shown in every part reveals an artistry and craftsmanship that seems to be lacking in modern items designed to be hidden from view. Hours if not days could be spent exploring and gathering questions.

Beyond the mechanisms are the people behind this collection; the human face of our technical history. These are the engineers who made the machines on display, who used them in their daily lives and kept them functioning. They have a collective wisdom that is of great value but above all else they are the living, breathing embodiment of the inquisitive minds we hope our students will aspire to be. They describe themselves as ‘problem solver’, as engineers and mathematicians. They use their knowledge of science to make sense of the challenges they face, they use mathematics as a tool and they collaboratively design new ways of solving problems. Now in their retirement years they continue to learn and as they do so they are keen to share their wisdom with a new generation.

Tinkering is in their nature but one has to wonder if today’s children have the same opportunities to tinker that generations past did. I remember fondly taking apart items of technology to see what was inside. My grandmother once allowed me to disassemble her old television. I learned many lessons from this including the need to be very clear in communicating that it is unlikely that the device will ever work again. I did the same with lawnmowers, music boxes, radios, out board motors and countless toys of varying forms. In some cases they went back together again, in other cases they donated their parts to new devices. I recall working with a group of friends to repair the school tractor.  The joy we shared when it started up for the first time combined with the sudden realisation that the noise it made could not be hidden from the teachers who had not given us permission for this lunchtime activity. Thinking back now I am almost certain they knew we were toiling away every lunchtime and were quite happy to pretend not to know; after all we did fix the tractor for free.

The opportunities we have to tinker today are perhaps less than they once were. Devices are designed to hide their parts. Car engines are a good case in point. Open the bonnet on any modern car and where you once saw a collection of pipes, belts, chains and linkages today you see a plastic cover hiding the real working from view. Electronics are held together with glue and tamper proof screws. Toys are tightly sealed to ensure small parts never get into the hands or mouths of young users. When the covers are stripped away and the insides laid bare, most of our technology is seen to be driven by ubiquitous and almost unfathomable green boards with tiny plastic moldings covering computer chips. The magic of a world of tiny parts moving in mechanical unison is lacking and so to is the curiosity that such movement inspires.

The maker movement has a great opportunity to reignite the sense of curiosity that children once had fuelled by their tinkering journeys. With making comes opportunities to look beyond the plastic covers, to use tools and machines to solve problems we seek and wish to solve. Connecting to the machines of the past and bringing these items into our MakerSpaces is one way to inspire curiosity. If our students can see how engineers once solved problems with mechanical devices, they can begin to build an understanding of how our modern devices solve similar problems in new ways. Beyond the tinkering and the making opportunities to explore technology that proudly refuses to hide its bits allows heightened levels of inquiry. Seeing the parts of a machine move and mesh together, seeing how a force is transferred from one object to another, from one form of energy to another is a catalyst for rich and meaningful exploration. If we want our students to develop inquisitive dispositions this is a great way to do it.

At the end of the visit time was given to allow the group of educators present to share their reflections with the engineers responsible for this amazing collection. We had all been inspired by the devices we had seen and our initial reflections were framed as responses to this. As we talked it became clear that the most valuable resource available were the people. This small group of passionate engineers who had devoted their lives to problem finding and solving had a wealth of experiences to share. Their experience with the processes of problem finding, ideation, prototyping, testing, modifying and finally arriving at a workable and viable solution is profoundly valuable beyond the lessons in history they can share. These men are the experts in the STEAM disciplines we need to connect with.

By Nigel Coutts

Professional Learning Communities for School Transformation

The role of the teacher is slowly but surely changing and with this come new challenges. Change becomes inevitable and processes for managing this and capitalising on the opportunities it brings becomes paramount within organisations. It is perhaps not surprising that educational institutions may evolve to become what are termed ‘Learning Organisations’ or ‘Professional Learning Communities’ within which there is a focus on the application of the principles of learning to manage change and explore new opportunities. The formation of 'Professional Learning Communities’ what they look like, how they function and the purposes that the best serve was the focus of the Hawker Brownlow conference in Melbourne.

The traditional model of a teacher in a classroom expertly meeting the needs of their students through a combination of personal passion and pedagogical craft is increasingly outdated and yet oddly persistent. It is a model that closes the individual off from the collaborative potential offered by a ‘Professional Learning Community’ (PLC). This isolationist view of education when faced with the rate of change presently resulting from technological evolution, societal change and a scientifically informed understanding of how we learn that emerges from improved brain science, leaves educators facing unassailable obstacles. A new model is required that allows the collective strength of the school to be brought to bear on the task of finding the most desirable solutions.

What a PLC offers is a way of understanding an organisation and an approach to problem solving within it. It identifies all of the individuals as learners and as such removes hierarchies of leadership structures. The goal within a PLC will be to learn together and in doing so solve the problems or maximise the opportunities that are found to exist. This brings about a new leadership model in which a vision is articulated but the specifics of how that vision is realised are allowed to be constructed through the learning journey of the PLC. Such a model brings a number of key advantages. It is highly motivational, giving individuals autonomy, purpose and opportunities to achieve mastery through learning and collaboration that traditional top down management strategies do not. (See Daniel Pink) It allows solutions to be built from the collective expertise of the organisation overcoming a reliance on the knowledge and wisdom of the senior leadership to solve the ‘Complex’ problems that organisations are increasingly likely to confront. It is a strategy that fits nicely with design thinking and encourages active engagement in a process of identifying problems or opportunities, imagining solutions, testing options and evaluating the results.

Through the conference I was struck by how the concept of a PLC fits with other ideas and models. Daniel Wilson’s research and suggestions for how organisations confront ‘Complex’ problems as opposed to the more regular day to day complicated problems particularly seemed to connect with the ideas presented across a number of sessions. Wilson describes three roles for leadership within organisations confronting ‘Complex’ problems, those where the very nature of the problem and its solution are unclear:

  1. Creating Vision - when dealing with complicated problems this involves defining and communicating the vision but when dealing with complex problems requires co-creation and for leadership to act as a change agent. Within a PLC this would be shaping the culture of the organisation so that the focus was on collaborative learning and problem finding/solving
  2. Developing People - when dealing with complicated problems this involves skill building and evaluation but when dealing with complex problems will require stimulating people towards growth and a culture that encourages experimentation. With this culture of experimentation must come a tolerance of failure. The PLC with its focus on learning would provide an ideal structure to support the development of people for the solution of 'Complex’ problems.
  3. Designing structures - when dealing with complicated problems involves establishing conditions for cooperative progress but when dealing with complex problems requires collaborative innovation. The PLC can be seen as ideal structure as it is focused on a learning process with known phases and elements. To this end a PLC could provide the sort of structure that according to Ewan Macintosh is offered by Design Thinking. In both ‘Design Thinking and PLC the ‘Complex’ problem with its inherent uncertainty and lack of definition is attacked by a structured approach which supports creativity. The idea is that the more uncertainty in the problem and as its solution demands ever greater levels of creativity the more structure is required to solve it.

The PLC model should fit effectively with organisational drives to become innovative and with that to experiment with new untested ideas. In the tech world of Facebook and Google innovation drives success and the willingness to ‘move fast and break things’ allows new ideas to be tried and just as quickly abandoned. It is a process of making mistakes and learning from those mistakes what works and what does not. Schools are less willing to engage in this process and in many respects are risk adverse. Despite this failure is unavoidable and organisations need to be able to learn from their failures. According to Cannon and Edmondson 'Most organizations do a poor job of learning from failures, whether large or small. In our research, we found that even companies that had invested significant money and effort into becoming ‘learning organizations’ (with the ability to learn from failure) struggled when it came to the day-to-day mindset and activities of learning from failure.’ (Cannon & Edmondson. 2005 p301) A culture that embodies a PLC should also embrace the notion of learning from failure and seek to address the three processes identified in 'Failing to Learn and Learning to Fail’ of 'identifying failure, analyzing failure, and deliberate experimentation.’ (Cannon & Edmondson. 2005 p300) That such an ideal fits so closely with the trend towards developing ‘Growth Mindsets’ within schools should speed its uptake.

This fits very well with Colin Sloper’s discussion of ‘Transformative Leadership in a PLC’. Colin calls for a relentless focus on developing the capacity of educators within schools as an essential goal for leadership. This focus on learning goes beyond the provision of traditional professional development experiences. Within a PLC the goal is to use a learning model to identify and collaboratively solve the problems confronting individuals, teams and the organisation as a whole. Traditional professional development models assume the solution is known and that it is possible to transfer the method of solving the problem from one person to another. In a PLC an action research model is much more likely to be employed as the way towards capacity building. Learners actively engage with the process and with agency and ownership collaborative learning is empowered. Professional Development within a PLC is anchored in the daily practice of the school, is likely to be peer led and will be personally relevant to the environment it is targeted at and developed within.

Tonia Flanagan addressed the fine art to leading teacher learning in her session on Day Three. She outlined the seven qualities of high reliability leadership and it can be seen how this fits into a PLC model. High reliability leadership is defined as:

  • Having a purpose bigger than the individual leader
  • Possessing and articulating core beliefs
  • Engaging in critical conversations - provocative conversations
  • Remaining centred in crisis
  • Possesses the courage to act - to avoid decision paralysis when decisions bring unavoidable and challenging consequences
  • Developing a succession plan to ensure the organisation can continue to thrive after your time of leadership
  • Embodying the power of positivity

If a PLC is to genuinely thrive it requires high reliability leadership as these attributes are essential to creating a culture of collaborative learning within an organisation. It is a leadership style that establishes the broad vision for the organisation as one that desires to learn and that does so within a set of guiding beliefs. The manner in which leadership acts to establish the purpose and vision for the organisation is in itself a ‘Complex’ task as while it must be clear what the core purposes of the organisation are it must also be possible for elements of the organisations purpose to be influenced and constructed as a result of the actions of the members of its PLC.

In parallel to this story of evolving Professional Learning Communities was a story of evolving technology and with that new challenges and opportunities for learning. Eric Sheninger shared how schools he has led utilised the affordance of evolving technology to facilitate change. Sheninger showed how the effective use of technology can shift the focus away from the teacher as the locus of control within education onto the student. What becomes clear is that the learner of today has at their disposal a diverse set of tools that enable, empower, connect and extend their learning capacity. This immense and growing diversity of options presents challenges to teachers who persist with traditional models of classroom management and pedagogy. The challenge seems to require a desire to become aware of the opportunities available and the capacity to evaluate the benefits of each while maintaining a focus on the essential learning that the students require. The message is clear that technology should not take control of education but should allow us to achieve our goals with greater efficiency. To this end a Professional Learning Community offers real advantages as it distributes the learning across many and allows the best tools to be discovered and shared. This is a collaborative endeavor that technology can itself empower as we become connected educators. Where technology will challenge teachers more so than other domains is that it is highly likely our students will possess high level of knowledge. When we understand that our Professional Learning Community encompasses our students the knowledge base of our students in all areas and particularly around the use of technology becomes and asset. Some of the tools shared by Eric are presented in this post - Tools for sharing thinking

It is interesting to note that while much of the language used with PLCs is highly relevant to a school environment it is an idea with broad applicability. As we shift towards an innovation economy in which nations measure their success against their capacity to innovate on and benefit from the affordances of new technology learning should become a national priority. Learning to learn from our mistakes and our failures is essential for growth but it is also a necessary condition for innovation that we experiment with ideas even without assurances of success. Deliberate experimentation that goes hand-in-hand with learning is an approach that should make sense across industries and education’s prior-knowledge and experience with the process should make teachers prized assets to any organisation or economy.

By Nigel Coutts

Tools for sharing thinking

Teachers and students have access to an impressive set of tools for sharing ideas and making thinking visible. The old model of calling out answers to questions has certain limitations and while it remains the mainstay of many classrooms new options allow for a mix of options. Some of our goals are to provide our students with appropriate wait time or think time and to ensure the voice of even our most introverted students is heard. It would also be nice to have a record of our students thinking and a way to easily see patterns of thinking across a group of students.

Fortunately there are a number of free tools that do these things and they are available for use on any technology platform as they require nothing more than access to the internet. Recently Eric Sheninger used a set of these tools to give his audience at the Hawker Brownlow Conference on Thinking and Learning in Melbourne a voice.

One of the simplest to use and set up is “Answer Garden”. This allows you to quickly pose a question online and it provides an easy to share web address that respondents use to enter their answers. Results are pooled and the result is a tag cloud or answers where the size of the answer reflects the frequency of the response. Answer garden works well with open ended questions and can be used to quickly identify issues, understandings and thought patterns of a group. It is so quick and easy to set up that it can be done on the fly and on demand.
 

Padlet is a well known tool for gathering responses to a question or issue together. It is a virtual inboard that allows users to post and share notes through an easy to use website. In many respects it is similar to the practice of using Post-It notes to record ideas and share them by sticking them onto a wall. Padlet is easy to set up and can be customised with coloured backgrounds, coloured notes and can handle images. Post-Its on Padlet can be randomly placed allowing similar ideas to be grouped together or it can be sorted in various ways automatically to create a neat grid.
 

Lino is in many respects similar to Padlet and could be used in exactly the same way. It adds the ability to comment on or reply to posts, a feature that encourages dialogue and could prove useful when more contentious issues are shared in this format. It allows multiple questions to be posted to a board with users replying to each, it would allow users to ask questions of each other and to post replies to ideas in a way that ensures relevant pieces stay together.
 

For linear conversations or back-channeling with media resources “Today’s Meet” remains an excellent choice. In some respects, it is like a temporary and task specific version of Twitter. A meet is created and link shared that allows users to post responses of up to 140 characters. Each post is added to the flow of ideas and the discussion evolves. It can become chaotic and it is at times difficult to link ideas together as multiple conversations emerge but it does provide a record of the thinking and conversation occurring within a group.
 

A tool with a definite wow factor is Plickers. This is a multiple choice response system with the benefit that it only requires a single device with the Plickers App and a set of response cards of the students. Each response card has a printed QR code and its alignment allows for four possible responses. The card is rotated such that the desired multiple choice letter or number is placed at the bottom. The App uses the devices camera to read the code and record the individual responses. As each QR code is unique individual responses are recorded and graph is produced showing how many responses resulted for each option. Plickers provides a cheap alternative to costly electronic ‘Clickers’ and its novelty factor and ease of use enhances engagement. As with any multiple choice style solution the quality of the questions or prompts will determine the quality of learning which results. Creative use and avoidance of entirely closed questions/responses will produce better results.

By Nigel Coutts
 

Collaborative Learning with Google Docs

Something is missing from my classroom lately and I am quite happy to have seen it disappear. It is the traditional line at the teacher’s desk formed by students awaiting feedback on a recently completed piece of writing. What has replaced this is our use of Google Docs and Slides as a tool for the collaborative development of ideas from initial thinking and strategising through to final editing and refinement. It has introduced a new workflow to the class that both streamlines the process of providing feedback, allows for greater detail and transforms the process into one that is richly collaborative.

Students selected images that represent places described in a novel we are reading, Google Slides allows this to be shared and collaboratively analysed. 

Students selected images that represent places described in a novel we are reading, Google Slides allows this to be shared and collaboratively analysed. 

A typical writing task will begin with a prompt. This is designed to have the students thinking and identifying possibilities. Sometimes it is a provocative statement other times it is a series of sample pieces designed to act as models for the writing that will come. In the past week students read a set of poems about heroic freedom fighters. Each poem was placed into a Google Doc and the students were asked to read all three independently and then select the one which they felt was most compelling. They used the commenting feature in Google Docs to reflect on the poems and identify devices used by the poets to engage their audience and construct meaning. Having looked at the pieces of the poems they then selected a thinking routine from the website www.rediquest.com. They used this thinking routine to analyse the poem as a whole and to reflect on its effectiveness.

The next step introduces two layers of collaboration. Firstly, they share their document with a number of classmates who now use comments to reflect on their peer’s analysis of the poem. They ask questions that probe for closer analysis and greater detail such as “What makes you say that?” and add ideas that might have been missed. through  this process the students share insights and gain a deeper understanding of how the poet has communicated their ideas and emotions with an audience. After some refinement and editing of the analysis this document is shared with me and I add my comments to the mix. Each student now has a collaboratively produced analysis of the poem they chose, one that they own and have played a part in developing at each step but one that is more detailed and of greater utility to them than the original produced independently.

The next step is to write a poem of their own using the poems they have read and the analysis they produced as a guide. Once again Google Docs is used and students begin drafting their poems in ways that make sense to them. Some choose to begin with lists of words, others start straight into drafting possible lines to later be assembled into stanzas. Once they have a draft they are reasonably happy with, they share that with me. I encourage them to share early in the process so that I may offer feedback before they are heavily committed to an idea and unwilling to make changes. I am able to add comments and make suggestions, they see these and adjust their writing or in some cases decide to stick with their idea. Comments appear alongside the document linked to a piece of text and can be more detailed than what may be scrawled in the margin of a student's  book. It is important that this is true collaboration and that they understand I am just adding my ideas. I would never want a student to think that their ideas are of less value than mine. As they continue to write they can choose to resolve the comments I have added or to reply where they feel some clarification is required. It becomes a very efficient conversation and they are able to deal with each piece of feedback in their time and without having to join a cue and wait for me.

One of the key advantages is that I see the process of writing. I can see which lines they are editing, the changes they make, the ideas they try and then abandon. The students benefit from my feedback but do not have a document covered in red ink. The final document is very much theirs. By the time they have finished and resolved each of the comments and suggestions they have a clean document ready to publish. At this point or often earlier in the process they can share their document with their peers and I can invite other teachers to read the piece as it evolves. My students are able to benefit from feedback from multiple sources and my colleagues are able to see how ideas have evolved within lessons that they will teach. Templates developed for a lesson can be quickly shared between classes and we can now see how students have made use of these templates and scaffolds as we share completed and partly completed samples.

Google Slides is becoming the go to platform for collaborations between groups of students. We are using this platform more for drafting ideas that incorporate text and images rather than as a tool for producing slideshows; a digital scrapbook. In many cases a rough outline is provided or alternatively a set of prompts may be offered. One recent lesson involved students identifying Mathematical concepts within a set of images. Each image was placed on a slide and groups of students were assigned to each image. Their task was to identify the mathematics present and add information to the slides that would make this visible. The conclusion of the lesson was to share what had been found back to the class. Another set of lessons asked students to locate images which they felt reflected places within a novel we have been reading. (See image at top of page) Each student produced a slide show of images and added their responses to the thinking routine “I see, I think, I wonder”. Once complete they shared their slideshow with a classmate who used comments to ask questions, offer feedback and add their voice to the analysis. In each instance the collaborative experience produced a richer learning experience.

The ultimate version of this style of collaboration are the “Coding Journals” the students are producing as they learn to programme robots to deepen and demonstrate their understanding of geometry. Each student is producing their “Coding Journal” using a Google Slides document as an initial template. Various slides have been created by their teachers to frame their initial thinking and provide some structure. Students add to this and make adjustments to suit their needs. Importantly each journal is shared with the teachers and with a set of peers who can all add feedback and also benefit from the shared learning. The “Coding Journals” are both evidence of learning and scaffold for future learning, a truly collaborative effort and the sort of tool that would be of benefit in real world settings beyond school.

All this online collaboration could be imagined as cold and impersonal compared to face to face discussions. The reality is that the conversations we do have are now much more focused and meaningful. I am more aware of what the students are up to, I can view their learning readily in advance of a conversation with no need for them to stop while I read their work. When they do stop to share work with a peer it has already been shared and read and they have had time to consider the feedback they will provide. The resulting conversations between students are focused and to the point.

The final piece of this collaborative effort is that as a group of teachers we have started using Google Docs for our programming and our annotations. We each use a single Google Document for this process and after each lesson add our reflections and observations. As we all have access to this constantly evolving document we can easily see how a lesson worked for a colleague. This information can then guide our delivery of lessons we are yet to teach, suggest new or additional resources and it provides opportunities to quickly and easily make adjustments to what will be our programmes for next year. The process is proving to be much more useful than the previous practice of annotating a printed programme and we are finding that the social nature of reflecting on our teaching to be most rewarding and even enjoyable.

As always I thank the team of teachers that I work and learn with. The ideas shared here are very much a product of our collaboration and I am continuously in awe of my colleagues capacity to deliver quality learning experiences.

By Nigel Coutts

The poem below was produced by a Year Six student using the collaborative process described here.

The Right to Fight
Malala Yousafzai


Basic rights
A definite no more
Fight for them
Fight for us

The day was new
When she spoke up
She fought for them
She fought for us

Inspired the world
A voice so small
She fought for them
She fought for us

Until that day
She could have died
We fought for her
She fought for us

The shot fired
The blood shed
She fought for them
She fought for us

Silence unknown
The world alive
We fought for her
She fought for us

Home she came
Glory bound
She fought again
She fought for us

We fight for her
She fights for us
We fight for them
She fights with us


By Sophie of 6C

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