Looking Back ...

This week, as I embark on a project based on analyzing a curriculum project, I thought it would be good to focus on the structure of backwards design principles. Backwards design is described as an extension of integrative thinking, wherein the curriculum is analyzed and studied, beginning with the base work, but with the first structured piece of class that is planned being the final assessment, with lessons planned after this is already established (Drake, Ried, Kolohon, 2014, 58-93). Generally, it is believed that this process of unit building is forward thinking despite its backwards perspective. Indeed, having done projects and run throughs with backwards design of a unit, it is an incredibly effective way in which to organize and process the alignments of a unit. However, this has led me to wonder why, in a time of IEPs and personalization of teaching, this backwards design is still predominantly being applied to the teaching structure rather than the student. 

I’m by no means suggesting that backwards designing an entire education for every specific student is anywhere near a tangible possibility. Perhaps however, in a world where parents and students alike are requiring different approaches it could be adapted in a useful way. As has been in the news recently, this now even extends to curriculum, for example, with the new Ontario sexual education curriculum causing waves. If we must consider the need for accommodation, not only for exterior influences but also as a result of interior information based in the curriculum, how is this to be accommodated?

I suggest that perhaps, backwards design can be applied on a larger scale. If teachers were to consider a number of alternatively designed educational programs, having planned alternative learning backwards sourced from a number of the most common problems and complaints, teachers would be able to best address the issues while still maintaining common ground and a strong alignment.

The following video illustrates this backwards design:

As is said in this video, backwards design is all about helping the student to reach a “final destination” or goal in their educational landscape. Although there has been much controversy particularly recently with the release of the aforementioned sex education curriculum, perhaps, if teachers were to begin planning alternative assignments now for those students who may be withdrawn from classes or unable to complete specific segments, they may be able to create more common ground for removed students.

This may appear idealistic and, coming from someone with minimal classroom experience and a limited knowledge of the inner workings of such matters, it may well be. However, perhaps, in the field of education we are overlooking the best education we ourselves receive. We are taught to think ahead by thinking to the furthest point and working our way backwards. Perhaps if this were applied within the context of curriculum issues or classroom projects, IEPs could spread from a more fringe movement within the school community and be utilized to their fullest potential, to help the largest amounts of students possible at a given time, foreseeing future problems and attempting to accommodate rather than prevent. While I myself may not see any issues with curriculum as it stands, this does not mean others will react in the same way. As a prospective teacher, think it’s important that we start being proactive rather than reactive. I don’t doubt many are already, but perhaps this needs to be a movement, one which engulfs education for the better.

Reference List

Drake, S.M. & Reid, J.L. & Kolohon, W. (2014). Interweaving curriculum and classroom assessment: Engaging the 21 Century Learner. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press. 

Marketing Education?

Over the past week, we in our class were asked to explore modern twenty-first century schools and progressive education programs. While I was expecting these schools to follow in the footsteps of Summerhill School and provide global awareness and innovative approaches to education, I was interested to see the way in which many of these progressive institutions now structure themselves, not as fringe education but rather the education of the future. In studying schools like High Tech High, Galileo Educational Network, and Inquiry Hub, it becomes clear that the marketing between alternative and traditional schools differs greatly.

Take for example, Inquiry Hub, which proudly displays it's goals on its home page, aiming to "Connect/Create/Learn" as well as to connect all learning to "Identity, Stewardship, Communication and Design". However, where people initially balked at Summerhill, The Inquiry Hub, while it does not seem impervious to confusion and controversy, explains its standpoint, goals and overall mission directly on it's homepage. 

Perhaps this is key to understanding the rise in alternative education, perpetuated through marketing as well as education itself. By placing all of the information required on their landing page, Inquiry Hub has instantly overcome the majority of questions and uncertainty which would arise through it's unconventional exterior, working to make parents and students alike immediately comfortable and aware of the deviations from usual schooling. However, they also serve to justify these differences, utilizing upfront explanation to qualify their methods and circumvent confusion and additional concerns, by addressing them directly and immediately.

I think, more so than this sort of explanation serving to popularize specific minority curricula beliefs, it also serves to present how education is being marketed. When I approached these new schools, I was shocked by how much transparency there was in the landing pages, in additions to the webpages themselves. Which brings me to the question, why is it that there is such a level of differentiation in how “traditional” schools present themselves next to “alternative” schools? We rarely see the provincial educational web pages promoting themselves in this way, but what does this say about the traditionalism of the general school system?

While you may think this signals a rant into the lack of progressive content in the school systems available to most students, this is not my intent. Instead I suggest that schooling has become such an institution of society that it is believed we no longer need to “market” the classroom as we would a more unconventional classroom. However, we must remember that arguably the most important element of the classroom is engagement and must reflect constructively upon how this information behooves addition of new educational methods and reforms. Perhaps if schools were to implement webpages with this much description and context, educators would be able to eliminate a number of questions and offer a more transparent view of education. Indeed, perhaps this would even allow for teachers to introduce new and alternative methods of teaching while keeping students and parents aware and comfortable in an easy and accessible way, allowing for a greater level of comfort towards change in the traditional classroom.

Attached are links to Inquiry Hub and Summerhill's webpages so their landing pages can be explored.

http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk 

http://www.inquiryhub.org

Until next time!

A. Gallacher

Facts and Films in the History Classroom

A few weeks ago, in lecture, I was posed with a question that has since taken up a little piece of space in the back of my mind. I was asked how I would incorporate visual literacy into a history classroom. Now while historical context can often be enhanced through visual aids, the first thought that came to mind were the films often screened in high school classrooms. 

Having considered this throughout class, I started asking some of my fellow history friends if they had been shown films in class. Some of the films tossed around seemed common, particularly for grade 10 history classes, Passchedaele, Saving Private Ryan, Swing Kids, The Pianist, Schindler’s List, The Untouchables, Cinderella Man, The Great Gatsby, and Elizabeth were all tossed around. Now this list is not compiled to question the screening of these films, or others like them in class. Instead we will discuss how, if choosing to utilize these materials, how the key to using them successfully, lies in the way in which they are explored through both fact and fiction.

Take for example the classroom that screened Elizabeth. The students were instructed to view the film with a very loose historical accuracy, rather instructed to use it to immerse themselves in the era itself. Likewise, another classroom may choose to screen only the scenes of the arrival on the beaches of Normandy from Saving Private Ryan in order to best immerse students into the violence, grime and terror of the Second World War, while not dealing with the fictional quest for a missing soldier. Although these dramatized histories are often loosely based on experiences, they have the potential to interfere with learning, putting a gloss over historical events.

However, if this dramatization helps to enhance student comprehension for a unit, it is not necessarily a bad thing. Shortly after this question was posed to me in lecture, I began to see the film Selma turn into an educational opportunity for students. A number of theatres across the United States began to screen the film for free for students, particularly those in grades 7-9, an initiative designed to raise awareness and empathy for the history of the Civil Rights Movement amongst students. 

Almost simultaneously however, there was a wash of articles about the historical accuracy of the film, with even a quick Google search for “Historical Accuracy in Selma” yielding over 208,000 results from publications including the New York Times, The Washington Post, and Vanity Fair. Amongst this rush of articles however, it became clear that, regardless of the accuracy, students were becoming actively involved in learning some history thanks to the film. 

While the accuracy in the film may not be complete, if a student is more receptive or excited to watch the documentary footage in the latter video after having seen Selma (or the attached trailer) it would appear that learning is being encouraged through a new twenty-first century medium.

Video One: Historical Bloody Sunday Footage/Interviews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVymzWrBTww 

(This content is not embeddable and also contains footage which should be viewed with discretion)

Video Two: Selma Trailer

Until next time,

A. Gallacher

... Maybe not "The End"!

Well I thought it was the end but I guess it was wrong, I'm ready for a new semester of new learning and improvement! Hopefully I've even learned a few things from my earlier blog posts!

In my very first blog entry, a few months ago now, I admitted a few things. 

1. I didn’t know anything about blogging. I can happily say I’ve rectified that situation (or at least hope I have!) 
2. I felt like the new story was beginning to trickle into the old story ways of teaching and 
3. Teachers have the ability for change and often act as “change agents” in the lives of students.

Since writing these previous entries the way in which I observe the world of education has changed, the things which I critique and pick up on, I would not have previously. In short, I’m looking at the world through education lenses now, constantly looking for methods and room for improvement in any “teachable moment”.

It seems to me that every moment has become a teaching moment, an opportunity for change, and the more that I look at the world through the optimistic “new story” lens, the more I see the ways in which the old story remains substantial. We may have moved on from the one room schoolhouse but children are still being monitored, taught in exactly the same way as they have been for generation and generation. Is there anything wrong with these methods of teaching? Arguably no, but I do wonder how the expectation of “old story teaching” influences and limits those working to instil the “new story”.

While parental expectations are a constant and important aspect of any educational endeavour, it is possible, at least to my mind that the chorus of “that’s not how we did it when I was in school!” or “why are they teaching you _________?” or even “that’s not really a ‘real’ class” have defined the modern classroom and anchored it to “old story teaching”.

It is my belief that, while parent’s and caretakers abilities to critique education and help their children with their own personal knowledge are an integral part of the educational process, and one that is under-appreciated, it is problematic to assume that these old story teachings must constantly overshadow new story teaching. 

When a parent criticizes a new method of teaching, I believe it can be damaging to the reception of the teaching style. Instead, I would propose that, for schools trying to adopt these new level principles, that they simultaneously support parental involvement, encouraging it by opening up new opportunities. 

At my high school, there were monthly meetings to help parents along to understand both the school as well as suggestions on how to interact with their children. It is my belief that this is integral to a healthy school environment for parent, teacher and student alike and should be instilled in all schools to create a wider system of support!

This video discusses many of the benefits to parental involvement and, when contrasted to the emerging new methods of teaching, illustrate how helpful it would be for parents to become more involved in promoting the “new story” to their kids.

Until next time!
A. Gallacher

The End?

Here it is at last, the final blog. I feel there should be a fanfare or a parade to signal the end of this era, but I suspect this is just the start.

I've spent a while reflecting on what I could discuss in my final blog. Do I discuss all that I've learned? Do I expound on twenty-first century learning? Whether it is know, be or do, vertical and horizontal curriculum scanning, the different forms of education we have seen throughout this semester, it is all absolutely integral to the way in which I now view teaching.

Coming into this year, I admit, I thought of myself as more a history major than a education major. Perhaps it's the result of my program and the way in which education is integrated directly into the curriculum we see in university, it remains invisible. However, this course set us out working with documents, set up our knowledge of twenty-first century learning and encouraged interaction with education on a higher level, incorporating both the global perspective on education as well as the Ontario curriculum. As a result, I have decided that this blog would be best representative of my learning if I were to illustrate what my personal know, be and do are, coming out of this course.

Know:

• First and foremost, know your students. Although I have gone on rants about how accessible the curriculum is to them, it is their education that you are facilitating, not your own.
• This is not to suggest that a teacher cannot learn in the classroom. Quite the opposite in fact, allow your students, their perspectives and experiences to educate you. We live in a world where classroom management is shifting and student perspectives are now considered vital. So use and incorporate them whenever you can. Just know when.
• Know the new story styles of learning. That does not mean to throw out all of the fundamentals of the old story but rather to augment and update as suits your needs. Use these stories as fluid ways to shape your own individual style, based on circumstance and requirement.
• Finally, know your curriculum. I'm ashamed to admit that going into this year I didn't. Now in many ways I do and am able to use government documents in a more succinct and effective fashion.

Do:

• Analyze. Students (at least in history) are constantly encouraged to analyze and explore. This needs to be done both in classroom and curriculum building to create the greatest amount of effectiveness possible.
• Synthesize. Combine bits and pieces of what is/isn't working and move forward from there. Teaching is fluid but more importantly, adjustable.
• Empathize. Explore how best to connect to your students as well as to encourage empathy within a larger context, locally, nationally and internationally, to both raise awareness and action.

Be:

• Be innovative. Although the curriculum stipulates certain opinions and ideologies, that does not mean you cannot create a framework of your own in which to teach them. From integrated curriculums to genius hour, inspire connections and originality in yourself and your class.
• Be creative and encourage your students to be as well. I'm sick of people telling me they aren't creative when every original idea we have as human beings is original and creative in each unique way.
• Be yourself. Hokey? Yes. Corny? Yes. But everyone is different (even more hokey!) and it's about time we started recognizing that both in our students and in ourselves. It really makes all the difference in who we are as people's d therefore as teachers.

These are my takeaways, they might not be everyone’s, but I believe there is something to be said for each of these elements, and how they can enrich the general experience of the twenty-first century learner, as well as that of the twenty-first century teacher.

Thanks for reading and 'till next time,

A. Gallacher

Shakespeare and Students

I want to turn my focus this week from the curriculum and onto digital literacy and how it’s being neglected in the classroom. You see, I have a confession to make. I am a Shakespeare geek. You heard me right, I love anything and everything Shakespeare related. Now, perhaps I’ve made you wonder what my Shakespeare obsession has to do with digital literacy. Although I love the old fashion call and response read-aloud Shakespeare presentations in classrooms, I’m not such a fan of the way in which I personally, as well as a few of my friends, have never seen a teacher actively trying to make Shakespeare more accessible. 

Sure, we watched She’s the Man while reading Twelfth Night but in no way did we analyze what made these themes endure and remain relevant enough to justify a modern interpretation. Going back to digital literacy, I would argue that there has never been a more comprehensive place to get information on any Shakespearean text than the internet. So then why, when I discussed Shakespearean classes with others was I informed that, not only was I not alone in reading the text’s aloud in class but that the film versions, lessons and performances shown were often dated and largely irrelevant to a 21st century classroom? Now this does not mean to suggest that 10 Things I Hate About You or She’s the Man should be taught in lieu of an actual Shakespearean performance, instead, this blog aims to explore a few of the new and different ways in which the internet is making Shakespeare more accessible for teachers and students alike.

Now, I feel I also have to admit that while this has been a passion of mine for a long while now, it has been inspired by some recent things I’ve noticed, and that I hope to build upon as a part of my Genius Hour project. Firstly, I want to explore the dedication to helping children understand the language of the plays, particularly well undertaken by No Fear Shakespeare. Secondly, another new digital advancement is the digitization and broadcast of pivotal productions of Shakespearean plays, particularly from companies like National Theatre Live, the Royal Shakespeare Company and Shakespeare’s Globe, all based in the UK, as well as the Stratford Festival on this side of the pond featuring top Shakespearean performers in leading productions. Finally the documentary Muse of Fire serves to illustrate the popularity of Shakespeare using even the most seasoned actors to assure students that it’s not something that comes naturally to even the leading players.

I want to start first by talking about No Fear Shakespeare.  When we were in high school it was discouraged to use the simplified versions to enhance your learning, but why? Personally, if it’s helping students (and they are still using the original text on the right side of the books/web versions) then why not use it? Not only can they be purchased in print form but they can also be accessed online for free in order to highlight specific scenes or passages that are complicated or confusing students. Indeed, if the whole goal of No Fear Shakespeare is to make it more accessible, then why are teachers seemingly so afraid to use it? It will not take away anything from the lessons besides the student’s confusion and therefore it should be utilized more freely.

To further appeal to the 21st century learner, there are now, as mentioned, a number of services which allow for recent Shakespearean productions to be seen and downloaded for a fee, including many of the classics staged in a wide variety of ways. To be able to see Shakespearean performance, performed in ways both classical and modern is one of the way s in which a digital environment can only enlighten the classroom. In the case of the “Original Principals” stagings at the Shakespeare’s Globe theatre, now available through their service Globe Player can help teachers integrate historical context into the curriculum, as they abide by many of the rules of staging from the contemporary period. Furthermore, this service also streams interviews from the documentary Muse of Fire which helps students in particular realize that there are a variety of accessible paths to Shakespeare, whether it is through specific actors or discussions on the way in which the text functions, the two men who host the documentary aimed to make Shakespeare more accessible. Attached are two videos of the same scene from two different versions of Twelfth Night which could be selected based on a specific class/the way in which the play is being taught, one a 1996 film clip and the other a 2011 Stratford Festival production, highlighting the potential for different portrayals.

Overall, perhaps as a result from the way in which I myself notice the launch of these services, I believe that there is a number of under utilized resources available to teachers to help enhance the general understanding of Shakespearean texts, so that, if they must still be taught they can be taught in a way which allows for better student comprehension and more confidence in student understanding of the texts. In general, these new digital resources, in any subject, much less a specific sub genre of English like Shakespearean texts, seem rather under-utilized. Thus these should be shared with teachers directly through workshops etc. to guarantee both teacher and student alike can benefit from new technology.

The Man Behind the Curtain ...

Walking out of class last week, I had what might be my biggest educational epiphany to date. Having handled curriculum documents in class, looking at each aspect of the curriculum and looking forward, where we will be working with the documents themselves, I realized that it was the first time I’ve ever held a curriculum document or even looked at one.

How is it possible to get through 12 years of public school education and multiple years of university education without ever having the perspective of the teacher on what the government insists upon student’s learning? We’re constantly instructed that the reason why we are learning x is because of y on the curriculum. Never once however, was I invited after one of these discussions in school, to look at the curriculum itself. In many ways it became a buzzword, the man behind the curtain, a regulating figure which worked without regulating anything at all, all that you needed was to hear the reason was curriculum related and you were expected to accept it as an element of grand importance. As I dwelt on this after class I couldn’t help but wonder. Maybe it was different for other schools? Maybe my schooling was the odd situation here, maybe everyone else was completely in the loop with regard to how the curriculum dictated the form their education took. Even how the curriculum itself looked!

But here’s the thing. I don’t think I’m the odd one out.

Take for instance, the Ontario Ministry of Education site. Now yes, it’s a formal government site and the last thing I was expecting to find on it were cartoons or visual aids to entice children to learn about education curriculum as I am not so far removed to not understand that kids probably aren’t interested in the curriculum. Although all of the government documentation is posted on the Ministry of Education website, these will read like dry political treatises to the majority of students. But does this mean they should not be informed of the curriculum at all? 

While the Ministry site was not the most student friendly experience, I was awestruck by how many of the instructions appeared geared entirely towards an adult audience. Take for example, this screenshot of the “Frequently Asked Questions” section which is placed after all the PDFs for the curriculums.

There’s nothing out of the ordinary about it, I admit, a rather average FAQ helping individuals understand and navigate the material offered by the website. However, upon a closer look, it can be seen that this site is not really intended for the student at all, for instance, examine the questions, all of which integral to an understanding of the curriculum.

Notice the language? Notice the way in which the questions even care more about the parent’s opinion than the students? These are not questions which would ever help a child understand the way in which classroom learning adheres to this seemingly fantastical but influential document. So why the complication? Why do we keep this documentation strictly among the adults? It is the student who must abide by the curriculum so why is there not a section for explaining it at the beginning of each year?

So that poses the question, what would the good in curriculum transparency for children be?

Not every child needs it. Not by a long shot. But for those inquiring minds, would it not be better to actually teach them the reasons why learning is structured a certain way instead of just dismissing it behind that word curriculum? Why, when the very job is to teach is this the one sector where further requests for information were generally refuted in my experience? I believe that the curriculum is, to a certain extent seen as the power in the student-teacher relationship, however, a more respectful relationship would be sure to result if children were actually involved in understanding what it is they’re learning and why, and would be less likely to resist cries of “Because it’s in the curriculum” if they too understood these documents, at least in broader strokes.

If a student like me who has wanted to be a teacher for many years even found themselves questioning the teacher over why the curriculum was structured in such a specific way, I can’t be the only one. So why aren’t we dealing with this? Instead of transparency, we breed loyalty to a document that appears to us clear as day but that must appear to the student like the man behind the curtain. Maybe it’s time he was seen by both sides. Students may not need to read a curriculum document from back to front but perhaps more detail is needed than grades and rubrics with regard to expectations. If we stripped away the grades what would we want them to learn? Why aren’t they being made aware of this? There is no reason not to humour inquiries on curriculum documentation and I see no reason why this mystery must continue in the long run. The curriculum needs to be accessible from a student perspective. After all, it’s ultimately their curriculum and their education.

A. Gallacher