thought control.

It’s been a while since I last posted, and as you can see I’ve made a few changes to the design and layout of the blog!

A while ago, I posted about the prospect of student blogging being a genuine context for authentic learning. Since that time, not only have I established a thriving class blog (urban legend), but I have also been able to sign up all of my 23 Grade 5/6 students to their own personal blog. This process has included signing-up all students to the new e-mail provider, signing them up to the blog provider, the initial set-up of the blog, discussing internet safety and etiquette and establishing a sense of purpose and audience about blogging as an educational activity. 

Keeping  in mind that this is just the start and that some students are still just establishing themselves (although some have done quite a lot already) here are some anecdotal observations that I have made so far about the success of student blogging with my own class: 

• students are excited about the activity of blogging and regularly ask if they can work on their blog 
• students are engaged by learning how to improve their blog, be it elements such as layout and organisation, quality of writing or content of writing 
• students have begun to think about the audience and purpose of blogging in school and are developing their understandings as to how this impacts upon the quality and content of their writing 
• students are beginning to make educational connections with each other through blogging and making comments 
• blogging has assisted the facilitation of other internet-based learning activities, with the class blog acting as a hub and model for blogging and internet activities 
• the class blog has been a good way to communicate with all people in the learning community 
• connectivity between student-student, teacher-student and parent-student has been greatly enhanced, with blogging enabling the display of work, expression of ideas, recounts of learning and enjoyable school activities 
• blogging has facilitated the learning of ICT skills and knowledge that would not have been encountered in just standard “word processing and computer learning games”, including learning about HTML, formatting and organisation of a blog, uploading and downloading, the concept of intellectual property, internet safety and etiquette, the power of connectivity and the immense potential of the internet 
• blogging has provided a springboard for spontaneous, incidental and self-directed learning for students 

I apologise in advance if should be crediting someone with coming up with the figurative phrase that happens to be the title of this post. Neither do I liken students to pigs! But the phrase “you don’t fatten pigs by weighing them” has been one that’s come to mind a lot recently, when considering the growing trend towards over-assessment in the education system. It seems that more and more time is being devoted to assessment and data collection and analysis, than there is devoted to developing good pedagogy, curriculum and teaching practices. 

Don’t get me wrong. Quality assessment tools that provide diagnostic information to teachers are important. They enable analysis, judgement, evaluation, comparisons, grouping of students, identification of needs and support and so forth. However, I can’t help but think that assessment is now becoming more than just that, in the sense that schools (not necessarily through their own choosing) are now looking at assessment as a means to gather data to measure “value adding”. This means measuring the amount of learning and educational capital gained by a student over a period of say 6 or 12 months as measured by the likes of standardised tests in English and mathematics. 

Not only does this sort of view make the incorrect assumption that all students learn in an undifferentiated and consistent and continual manner (along with the assumption that standardised tests are the best way to measure learning), I can only think that this sort of view is likely to lead teachers down the track of becoming very narrow in their teaching.

If we are not careful, this move towards assessment being used to measure “value-added” will see teachers focusing in on a very small set of skills that are included in the standardised tests. The fact is, that these tests are generally focusing in on the basics of English and mathematics – skill sets that can actually be assessed for the quantitative purpose of measuring “value-added”. This will mean that anything that is not included in such tests, anything that requires a qualitative approach to assessment, will soon be seen as “valueless”, or even worse, “value-subtracting” by their place in the curriculum (ie: the arts, physical education, scientific thinking, humanities . . . you can take your pick, really). Even the more diverse, yet equally important aspects of literacy, such as being able to read multimedia and multi-modal digital texts may be excluded from what is considered to be valuable. What about interdisciplinary aspects of the curriculum, such as thinking, ICT, and personal and interpersonal development? Surely these equally important qualitative aspects of education will end up taking a back seat to the more easily measured, isolated basic skills of English and mathematics if “value-adding” really takes hold. 

What is actually needed in fact, is what Wilkinson, L. (2005) would term as a “wide/narrow curriculum”, whereby a wide focus on engaging, broader issues and rich learning contexts provide a purpose for occasional narrow investigations, where necessary, in order to hone skills and understandings. In the context of an engaging wide curriculum, the narrow curriculum gains purpose. A narrow curriculum by itself lacks purpose and will also lack the engagement for learners, which logically would mean poorer results in terms of quality of overall learning across the broader curriculum. 

Assessment tools, no matter how good, will never be a substitute for good pedagogy, good curriculum and good teaching in practice. These aspects of good teaching should be focused on first and foremost, when it comes to the amount of time and money spent on the professional development of teachers and schools and the policies of any education department. Assessment is part of all of these aspects of teaching, rather than something separate in itself. It should inform and enhance quality teaching, not dictate or limit it, or try to measure it in a narrow “value added” sense. 

Further reading: 

Wilkinson, L. (2005). Improving literacy outcomes for students in disadvantaged schools: The importance of teacher theory. In Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Volume 28, No. 2, 2005, pp.127-137.  

Rich Tasks 

National Testing 

Diversity in Literacy 

In 2008 the Australian government introduced the NAPLAN tests as part of the nation’s education system. The tests cover basic skills in literacy and mathematics and are taken by students in grades 3, 5, 7 and 9. Students at each of these levels all sit the same tests. The results place each student on a scale comparing them to all other students tested across the nation in their particular age group. Currently, NAPLAN holds its place as a simple form of data, derived from students’ performances on a selection of tests that are each taken once every two years from grades 3 to 9. As students in a particular grade all sit the same test regardless of their ability to meet that standard or perform beyond, it is very much a “one size fits all” approach to assessing and measuring students’ abilities and progress. Likewise, the results that are reported back to students, families, teachers, schools and administrators are based on age-determined comparisons, as opposed an accurate assessment of level of ability. In this regard, NAPLAN it is an easily implemented, politically advantageous, but very limited answer to the educational need for a quality assessment regime that informs teachers and schools of the educational needs and abilities of individual students and cohorts. 

Some might argue that the results of national testing may better aid the direction of government funds to those schools with the most need. However, at the coal-face, national tests such as NAPLAN appear to create more angst than anticipation. Teachers and schools are faced with being more concerned about being up to scratch with NAPLAN results, rather than keeping the overall picture of a quality education and broader curriculum and meeting the needs of all learners in focus. The risk is that schools and teachers will become more focused on simply getting borderline students “up to standard” in a narrow and select range of skills in order to avoid scrutiny due to poor results. But what about those students who are high achievers? What about the broader aspects of the curriculum, such as the humanities, science and interdisciplinary learning (ie: ICT and thinking)? Some might argue that the purpose of national testing is simply to gain an understanding of whether or not students at each are proficient with the “basic skills” required in the core subjects of literacy and mathematics. But what about the changing nature of education in these areas of literacy and mathematics, particularly the changing nature of the challenges and supports for learners in a world that is progressively relying more on critical thinking and understanding of multi-modalities and digital texts? 

There is a serious risk that in order to achieve “satisfactory results”, schools may simply narrow down their curriculum to the extent of “teaching to tests”, as opposed to teaching what is powerful, valuable, and necessary across the broader spectrum of the curriculum. There is also the risk that those students who are not at risk of receiving poor results on NAPLAN tests may be focused upon less, despite their equal need for quality teaching and extension at their higher level of ability. 

If we are to have a systemic testing regime, a better system than NAPLAN is needed. If teachers are going to test students for necessary skills in learning, why not develop a resource of progressive tests based on level of ability, rather than age-determined groupings? Such tests could be administered, marked and analysed by teachers within their own schools and taken by students at either one or two testing periods each year. The information derived from the tests would inform teachers and schools about each child’s proficiencies and areas for improvement, rather than just a comparison with age-determined groupings. After beginning at a benchmark test early in primary school, students could sit progressive tests according to their ability level. If a child receives a high score on a test (taking into account the scaled difficulty for their age-level), then they simply do the test at the next level up, and so on, until the results of the test indicate the point at which the child needs further instruction to progress in their learning. A student who is advanced, may therefore achieve a high result and move through two, or even more, tests within one testing period, thus indicating a higher level of proficiency based on ability, rather than simply by comparison to like-age groupings. Such data could be collated and used for student grouping for targeted-teaching and focus groups, as well as assisting schools in identifying students at risk and in need of extra support, as well as those in need of extension. This same data could also be used to inform regional and departmental authorities about needs for funding and support at school and regional level. 

Until governments invest time and money in a better testing system, teachers will simply have to put up with the limitations of NAPLAN. Hopefully teachers and schools don’t fall in to the one size fits all traps of narrowing down the curriculum, “teaching to the tests”, and only focusing on bringing the borderline students up to standard at the expense of the broader curriculum and the broader student cohort, including those who are performing above NAPLAN standards and are in need of extension. 

Teachers often aspire to create “authentic” learning tasks. Usually this means creating tasks that have some element of “real life” in them. But what do people really mean by “authentic” and are we really achieving authenticity anyway? 

In recent years I’ve come to dislike the word “authentic” in the way it’s used in educational settings due to its overuse. The word could just about mean anything to anyone. In some cases, it may have even become more of an espoused theory than a theory in practice. Likewise, it has to be questioned whether or not teachers reflect on the nature of authenticity in the teaching and learning experiences in school. 

More often than not, school learning is a rehearsal for “real life”. There is nothing wrong with learning simply being a rehearsal for real life either – particularly if the rehearsal has been planned out well, and students progress in their learning through completing difficult tasks and engaging with a topic at a deep level. Despite this, teachers often strive to find “real life contexts” for teaching and learning. While this is an admirable goal to aim towards, it can often be the case that teachers fail in this pursuit. After all, if the available opportunities are superficial when it comes to intellectual rigour, and the links to actual learning end up being tenuous, you’d have to question whether or not the learning has any bearing with real life. If students don’t learn a lot, then it is arguably not valuable in “real life”.

Similarly, something that may well be authentic to teachers, or what teachers think is authentic in terms of the broader world, may have very little authenticity for students. If a task is not sufficiently student-centered and capable of connecting the learner to the world that is being explored then it is not authentic for the student. Merely presenting a new world of learning to students to comprehend is not authentic in itself. Students must be able to engage, interact with, understand and manipulate new learning on a personal, cognitive level. They must be able to DO something with their new learning that enables them to participate in the world in an improved manner, with better skills and knowledge. Not just experience “real life”. 

However, I believe student blogging may well open up a new way of thinking about what is an authentic task. With thoughtful use of blogging as a powerful learning tool, teachers may be able to better achieve authenticity in teaching and learning. 

For instance, the very nature of composing a text that is to be published to a wide audience involves students in thinking about the purpose of their writing as well as the audience. This in itself is a very genuine (dare I say “authentic”) connection between student and world. 

Student blogging also provides a conduit for an element of “community interaction” that some people argue is an element of what makes learning “rich”. Blogging that involves an in-depth and thoughtful presentation of student of learning through the student-directed creation of multi-modal, digital texts to be presented to a world-wide audience is not only rich, but also highly rigourous. Students are involved in many levels of literacy and thinking, with enormous potential for the learning of skills and understandings in these areas. 

With the world-wide-web at the finger-tips of teachers and learners, students blogging provides a powerful means to publish and promote learning. Opportunities for students to connect with the world in authentic ways have arguably never been greater. Therefore, not only is it important for students to “learn to blog”, but also for them to “blog to learn”.

What is a “rich task”? A rich task involves both process and product, following an inquiry-based model of learning. Students learn large amounts of new content, develop important skills and develop in interdisciplinary learning. This includes personal-management, interpersonal development, communication, ICT and particularly in thinking. Usually a “rich task” might be classified as a term’s worth of learning under the guise of “integrated studies”, but a rich task could be equally as applicable in literacy and mathematics programs (or indeed any other area of learning). Here are some key areas that I think people need to consider when aiming to plan rich tasks: 

Open-Ended: In an open-ended task there are multiple possible outcomes for success. This assists in catering for different levels of ability amongst the students. It also allows for student ownership of the task, as they are able to choose their own directions and work on their own solutions. Student choice is important! It allows for student ownership, self-direction, and engagement. This means students are genuinely thinking for themselves, rather than simply trying to crack the code to predict an answer/solution that has been predetermined as being correct by the teacher. Make sure that the task is genuinely open-ended, and not just that it is possible for some minor differences in answers, with only one main solution being possible. It is also a good idea to aim to be open-ended in allowing for various modes of presenting the final product (ie: speech, ICT, visuals, movie, drama, print-based text, etc.). 

Problem-Based: Having a task where students have to respond by solving a problem ensures that there will be the need for both creative and critical thinking (ie: brainstorming ideas, critiquing suggestions, evaluating, etc.). Solving an open-ended problem, where students have the power of task-ownership and self-direction provides a context for deep thinking and engagement. In order to solve a problem, students have to engage in thinking and not merely rely on the pre-established ideas of others. 

Inquiry-Based: In short you could say this means that a task follows the pattern of Bloom’s Taxonomy: “gathering information, processing information for comprehension, applying information to solve a problem and evaluating the results“. Following this model ensures that students build skills and content knowledge in a lot of disciplines. It also helps to develop interdisciplinary learning, such as group-work, personal-management, thinking and communication. You don’t want a rich task just to be all about gathering information and presenting it – there need to be tasks that require students to apply their new-found knowledge by thinking creatively and critically in order to solve an open-ended problem with opportunities for self-assessment and reflection throughout. 

Wide/Narrow Curriculum: A rich task should provide opportunities for wide study and learning of content from a wide selection of areas. There should also be opportunities for narrow inspection of important details that are crucial to the outcomes of the study. Students need opportunities to learn broad concepts, with broad examples from the broader world, while also having opportunities to ensure that they comprehend important details and key skills and concepts through targeted teaching and learning. I’ve grabbed this idea from Wilkinson, L. (2005). Improving literacy outcomes for students in disadvantaged schools: The importance of teacher theory. You can read more about this theory in many of my assignments that are contained on the pages of this blog. 

Process > Product: In this case the ‘>’ symbol doesn’t necessarily have to mean “greater than” (that in itself is another discussion!). But, it certainly does mean that process comes before product and that the process in itself is a bigger aspect of learning than just the end product by itself. A rich task should have a significant process of learning and discovery as well as difficult challenges in the tasks themselves. When assessing a student’s work on a rich task, it is important that a teacher includes some process-related indicators as part of the assessment. For instance, a student may have displayed excellent thinking, group-work and personal-management throughout the task, but their product may have failed for some particular reason. It is valuable for the student to receive feedback about both the process and product so that they understand their strengths and areas for improvement as a learner. It is important to realise that the rich task is both the process and the product. 

Collaboration: Collaboration is important for developing interpersonal skills as well as personal-management. It is also important for developing the ability to think creatively and critically and to engage in discussion and work in ways that are respectful to others. If a student simply works by themselves, then they are less likely to be challenged in their thinking. Working in a group means that students are more likely to justify their answers and ask clarifying questions of others and develop the ability to learn from others and accept differences in thinking. Collaboration provides a good context for group discussion and exploratory talk. Collaboration also provides many challenges and supports for students as individuals, in that they are challenged to improve in certain areas, whilst also being supported by the variation of skills and abilities of their peers throughout the learning process. There are some people who argue that in group work “one student does all the work and the others slack off”, “the kids don’t get along”, (etc.). These people need to be reminded of “process > product” and keep encouraging and teaching students the skills to move beyond problematic behaviours. There are also some people who say that they find it difficult to assess group work. I believe that this is a bit of a cop out from those teachers who don’t plan effective methods of assessment, don’t closely monitor student progress on a task and would prefer to administer learning and assessment from the comfort of the chair behind their desk. 

Experiential: Not all students have the life experience and knowledge required to tackle a open-ended, problem-based task. Not all students have the same degree of skill with print-based texts or receptiveness to “chalk and talk” teaching to rely on these methods for gaining new knowledge. So, the learning experiences that go with the rich task should be ones that offer students different ways to learn new content. For instance, excursions, interactive activities, experiments, discussions, hands-on activities, movies, documentaries, ICT, games, software, websites, audio, guest-speakers, books, drama, etc. Do not discount the value of print-based texts, but certainly don’t limit resources and texts just to print-based versions. 

Engaging and Relevant: Ask yourself these questions; Is the task relevant for students as individuals? Is the task relevant to the wide curriculum? Is the task relevant in relation to the broader world (both local and global)? What is it about the task that is going to engage students as learners? A rich task may not necessary tick all of these boxes initially, but it should tick most of them. 

There are some people who argue that for a task to be “rich” that there must be an element of community interaction (ie: teaching or reporting back to the community, improving something in the community, etc.). Whilst I agree that these can be good aspects of a rich task, I don’t agree that community interaction is one of the criteria that makes something a “rich”. I believe a simulated context in learning is a good rehearsal for a real-life situation. I find it far easier to develop simulated contexts through thoughtful planning where you can guarantee a higher degree of content coverage and challenge for students through a well-planned series of tasks, rather than try to find a real-life context for rich tasks where the learning is narrow and activities only really delve into things at a shallow level. For instance, in the first term this year, grade 5/6’s at my school will be doing a unit on governments. The rich task will involve students developing a style of government, along with policies and laws, in order to manage a hypothetical country that they have been left in charge of, complete with scenario. Obviously this is not something that can be replicated in real-life, but the task is certainly one that ticks most (if not all) of the criteria above. 

Further reading: 

Teaching Thinking 

Diversity in Literacy 

Oral Language in Learning