Originally published in Connect Magazine
This much-maligned question seems so appropriate for education's recent history. All that was normal, everything that was routine, all of our structures, have been turned upside down and hurled into the wind of COVID19. From having spoken of a future dominated by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA), we have found ourselves living in it. Innovation and creativity became the new normal as we "Apollo 13" schooling into a model that met the demands of emergency remote learning. The pressure, the workload, the demands on our time and the cognitive load have all been immense, and so it seems fitting to ask "Are we there yet?".
And, just when we think we are getting our heads around this remote learning business, things are changing again. We are going back into face-to-face teaching, albeit under conditions dominated by social distancing, temperature checks and personal protective equipment. Another new normal is on the horizon. But, as Winston Churchill might have stated, this is not the end, this is not the beginning of the end, it might be the end of the beginning, we just don't know. VUCA continues to dominate, and these are indeed post-normal times.
Amidst all our current scrambling, particular patterns have emerged. In the absence of face-to-face dialogue with students, aspects of teaching that might otherwise be minimised or hidden have bubbled to the fore. In the initial rush to emergency remote online learning, a plethora of worksheets and online learning tools became the norm. The focus was on giving the students something to do, something that allowed them to spend time each day on school like learning while they remained safe at home. And then came the videos - teachers recording lessons to be absorbed by learners. Teaching regressed to a time when the flow of learning was unidirectional (from teacher to student) and focused on low-order skills and knowledge recall. It was a little like watching HAL, the supercomputer of Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A space odyssey" sing Daisy. For many, this was a troubling time, and they knew that much of what was good about contemporary education was missing.
As the time of remote learning continued fresh questions and wonderings began to emerge. The pattern shifted as teachers began to wonder how might we ensure that the remote learning we are tasking our children with is engaging, empowering and thought-provoking. There were efforts to bring dialogue into our online learning environments, and students and teachers once again shared ideas and built connections. Questions such as "How do we translate the dominant patterns of dialogue and deep thinking into remote learning?" and "How do I continue to teach for understanding, and make the thinking of my students visible in this new time?" were pondered.
Now, as we move back into face-to-face teaching, we have the opportunity to reflect on this time and to consider what might have worked and what we might need to tweak. It is said that absence makes the heart grow fonder. If this is so, what have teachers and students missed most from the version of school that was the norm before COVID19 became a thing? And, how might we restart the education system in ways that better focus us on the things which matter most?
As we look back at the early days of remote learning, we notice two things were absent. When we examine what we tried to add back into the mix as the days stretched into weeks, these two things again stand out as missing. Given the close relationship and codependence between the two, it is not surprising that once one went missing, the other did too. What might these things be? - Student agency and deep and varied thinking.
Student agency and thinking are natural bedfellows, but they are not always immediately linked. Student agency is often associated with opportunities for student voice or choice. In many ways, this makes sense and schools should foster opportunities for these things, but agency is more than just a nice way of making decisions about canteen menus. Once we look at how schools might promote agency as a disposition with lifelong value, then we begin to see agency in a different light; one that requires thinking.
Bandura's definition of agency fits well with most contemporary understandings of the term. According to Bandura (2001) "The core features of agency enable people to play a part in their self-development, adaptation, and self-renewal with changing times." This points to agency having an impact beyond what is achieved when a school listens to student opinion. Indeed the power of agency is most needed when individuals confront challenging times as explained by Little, Snyder and Wehmeyer (2006).
"In facing these challenges, an agentic individual is the primary origin of his or her actions, has high aspirations, perseveres in the face of obstacles, sees more and varied options, learns from failures, has a strong sense of well-being, and so on. A non-agentic individual, on the other hand, is primarily the pawn of unknown extra-personal influences, has low aspirations, is hindered with problem-solving blinders, and often feels both helpless and hopeless."
What is clear here is that agency should be a vital measure of the success that our education systems have. Beyond allowing students to play a part in their education, developing student agency will prepare them for life beyond school as empowered citizens able to shape their world.
The link between thinking and agency should become apparent when we consider a definition of agency that values its place as a lifelong disposition. "As such, agency, like character, can be understood as a disposition—seeing oneself as an agent of change within the designed environs of one's world." (Clapp et al. 2017) As Ritchhart notes, ""agency," is the ability to make choices and direct activity based on one's own resourcefulness and enterprise. This entails thinking about the world not as something that unfolds separate and apart from us but as a field of action that we can potentially direct and influence". (Ritchhart. 2015) This requires us to think about the world in a particular manner; one that allows us to imagine the part we may play in shaping it. It also requires that students are engaging mindfully with the curriculum, that they are investigating ideas and concepts that matter and that as they do so, they are required to think. "Learning happens when students engage with ideas, when they ask questions, explore, and construct meaning with our guidance and support. . . . Exploring meaningful and important concepts that are connected to the world often means students want to take action. Providing opportunities and structures for them to do so encourages students' agency and power while making the learning relevant." (Ritchhart & Church, 2020) In this, we see the connection between deep-learning and engagement with learning that matters with learner agency. This is the type of learning that we and our students missed when we moved to emergency remote learning, and it is this that we want to ensure is emphasised as we return to face-to-face.
What this type of learning requires is beautifully captured by Mike Medvinsky of Michigan. Mike is a coach in Project Zero's "Creating Cultures of Thinking" course and teacher of Music Production at University-Liggett School. He shares his approach to promoting student agency through a culture of thinking as follows:
I truly believe that the one's who are doing the thinking and the talking are the people who are doing the learning. And when I am the one who is talking the whole time and explaining things I'm the one doing the thinking and learning. It's truly important that I set the stage, lay the groundwork for the experience and the learners then take the initiative to do the thinking, do the learning, do the talking, share their ideas, reframe their thinking and continue this journey in our learning experience. So the more that I can take a supportive role, rather than a lead role, the learners become the active agents of their own learning. . . When a learner is truly owning their thinking, it becomes meaningful and relevant to them. When they're sitting in a class where they're just getting information and regurgitating it onto a test its not going to be anything that is an enduring understanding. (Mike Medvinsky. Secondary Music Production. University-Liggett School, Michigan)
The sort of thinking that Mike describes does not occur without the right context and culture. Unless thinking is noticed, named and valued, it won't thrive. Indeed, all of the dispositions we may aspire to develop in our children such as curiosity, imagination, creativity, empathy, critical thinking and indeed agency cannot be taught in isolation as skills to be mastered. We do not benefit from learning about dispositions. "Dispositions must be enculturated - that is, learned through immersion in a culture." (Ritchhart. 2015) A key component in getting the culture right is the act of making thinking visible. When we make thinking visible, we are able to create opportunities to notice and name the thinking that we and our students are engaging in and when we do this we encourage more of it such that thinking becomes routine. This process is well served through the use of thinking routines, and the use of such routines can unlock student agency as Erik Lindemann describes "The routines build learners' capacity to engage with complexity while inspiring exploration. As my students begin internalizing and applying these thinking tools, I become a consultant in their ongoing investigations. Curiosity and excitement fuel deeper learning as my students take the lead," (Cited in Ritchhart 2020)
So, Are we there yet?
What weeks of emergency remote learning revealed is that even where we claim to value agency and a culture of thinking, the reality might need some tweaking. Do we routinely begin the process of planning for learning with these things in front of mind? Are we asking questions that guide us towards enculturating thinking such as "What thinking might my students require here?" or "What type of thinking might my students most benefit from experiencing now?". Are we seeking to enculturate agency by seeking opportunities for student-led inquiry and subsequent action? Or, do we begin our planning process by asking "What will I have my students do today?" or "What must I explain to them in this lesson?". When we look back at the learning we planned as an emergency response to COVID19, which of these questions are revealed as our go-to response, and how might we change this narrative?
By Nigel Coutts
Clapp, E., Ross, J., Oxman Ryan, J. & Tishman, S. (2017) "Maker-centered learning: empowering young people to shape their worlds”, San Francisco, Josey Bass
Bandura, A. (2001) "Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective". Annual Review of Psychology 52:1-26
Little, Todd D., C. R. Snyder, and Michael Wehmeyer. (2006). “The Agentic Self: On the Nature and Origins of Personal Agency Across the Lifespan.” In D. K. Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds) The Handbook of Personal Development, 61-79. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ritchhart, R. (2015) Creating cultures of thinking: The eight forces we must truly master to transform our schools. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Ritchhart, R. & Church, M (2020) . The Power of Making Thinking Visible. Hoboken NJ: Josey-Bass.