Tuesday, 12 August 2014

Personal Responsibility

http://www.karentuiboyes.com/2014/08/learning-personal-responsibility/

Learning Personal Responsibility

What has happened to personal responsibility? I again wondered this while on an aeroplane recently. As always the crew showed the safety demonstration. I have heard this literally hundreds of times, (as of writing this post I have been fortunate to travel on 1752 planes in the last 35 years – yes I keep a record) yet lately there is a new addition to the dialogue. If you have traveled on a plane this will be familiar…
“… and finally before take off, clip your tray table back, make sure your seat back is upright, your arm rest down and the window shade up.”
Here is the piece that has been added…
“Please make sure children’s toes and fingers are well clear of any moving parts.”
What? Surely if you have children with you, or around you this would be a given? Why the need to say it? Is to avoid being sued if fingers or toes do get caught? Has there been that many children’s extremities that have been pinched, squashed or amputated to warrant being so explicit about it? Part of me feels that because it has been said out loud, that now it has opened up the possibility of it happening – the idea of manifestation or the Law of Attraction. Below are 2 posters and ideas that I hold to be true. One from the spiritual aspect with Abraham and one from an ancient Chinese Philosopher…
Screen Shot 2014-08-08 at 9.54.07 pm
Lao Tzu, Chinese Philosopher
Poster from my home









 
The other part of me knows that for children to learn they MUST have experiences. I despaired with how many people said to my children, while playing in the kitchen cupboards, “watch your fingers.” I was more of the opinion – catch your fingers – they will only do it once, or maybe twice!
What has happened to the personal responsibility of allowing people to make mistakes and learn? Many (or it often feels like most) have gone from being able to accept responsibility for failure to blaming those around us, from being accountable and righting the wrong, to making excuses, even taking ownership seems to have been replaced with denial.
This is obvious in this cartoon, which I know is not so funny for most teachers, because it rings so true…Screen Shot 2014-08-04 at 10.30.41 pm A few years ago I was in a classroom, about to teach a group of students how to study to pass their exams. It was three weeks before the national exams. This maybe a little late to be learning study skills, however 3 weeks of great study is better than none. Just before I commenced, a student came rushing in and exclaimed; “I can’t be here – I have to go and finish my art portfolio or the teacher will be cross with me!”
This is a great example of not taking personal responsibility. She was blaming the teacher for making her do it, rather than learning the lesson of time management that was presenting itself. What if she had come to me and said, “I can’t be here today, because I have not managed my time well and I need to complete my art portfolio.” In this statement she would have been taking responsibility, communicating an awareness of the lesson to learn and in time be able to learn it.
When taking notes in class, do your students just write down only what you say and how you display it, or are they able to have the flexibility to set out their page in the best way for them. Do they know the best way for them to learn? Can they use colours, draw pictures and diagrams relevant to the text, create mind maps and even write extra notes that you have not asked them to? Have you empowered your students to take responsibility for their note taking, for their learning?
Once I was about to teach a group of students how to study to pass their exams when the principal announced to the students that they needed to pass their exams to raise the schools status. Hello – no – they need to pass their exams so they can get ahead in life, so they feel successful, so they have choices further down the track. Passing exams is not about pleasing teachers, parents or raising a schools status, it is about the personal achievement… A framework that I have used to help understand that personal responsibility is below.
Screen Shot 2014-08-08 at 11.20.07 pm
Responsibility chart
 A question I often ask is, “Are you playing above or below the line?” or “Are you playing in the Victim team or the Learning team?”
Now we are all human and it is normal to blame, make excuses and deny. The important factor is that you recognise that you are below the line and reframe the challenge or situation from the position of the learning team, above the line.
Screen Shot 2014-08-09 at 7.56.20 am

Adrian Rennie, a wonderful teacher in Christchurch,New Zealand, rewrote this chart in child friendly language… I love his ‘cool and fool monster’ analogy.
What are some of the ways you promote students taking personal responsibility?
How do you model this in your classroom and in your life?
Which strategies do you engage to ensure students can learn from their mistakes and take personal responsibility for their learning and their life.

Sunday, 10 August 2014

Putting ‘Investing in Educational Success’ into context





Putting ‘Investing in Educational Success’ into context

Opinion: Martin Thrupp
June 9, 2014
Last week saw the release of a report on the Government’s Investing in Educational Success (IES) proposals as announced by John Key in January. This is ‘the detail’ of the proposal to introduce new teaching and leadership roles (although there are some more particulars to come) as developed by a working group of 11 early childhood, primary and secondary education sector organisations. These organisations were asked to be ‘in the tent’ with the Ministry of Education to influence the detail of the policy, the broad outline of which had already been decided by Cabinet and that came out in January. Some of the organisations went in willingly and some with much more reservation. The divergent press releases put out on Scoop by the PPTA and NZEI reflect these tensions.
The IES working group report is a lot to grapple with but in some ways I think it is the ‘backstory’ that is just as important to understand. Here I mention various broader contexts within which I think the latest report needs to be read and understood. I look at the problems of inadequate media scrutiny, of valued and ignored expertise, and of the school system becoming hollowed out and less principled. Then towards the end I make some more direct comments on the report. I write as an established academic in the area of New Zealand education policy but also in the spirit that as academics we sometimes need to give a broad account of what we are seeing.
Media coverage
It would be nice to think that potential problems with the IES proposals would be highlighted by the scrutiny of the media. But these days it is hard to find really searching mainstream coverage of New Zealand educational reform, although Radio New Zealand has generally been better than print or TV. Given the sheer scale and complexity of the IES and the number of people within the process, good coverage of this particular reform seems even less likely. When the policy was announced in January it seemed to catch most journalists in holiday mode, as they dutifully reported it but with little investigation. The situation was not helped by various uncritical voices from within the sector.
Now this sizeable two-part working group report has come out and it appears the media won’t really have the time or inclination to follow it up. Good on the Manawatu Standard for a front page article, there has been an article in the Wairarapa Times-Age and there have been opinion pieces on Stuff from the NZEI and from right-wing think tank, the New Zealand Initiative. Perhaps we will see only see more coverage if National wins the election, the policy moves forward and practical problems start to emerge. With the National Standards policy there was no substantive print media coverage of concerns in the year leading up to the launch in October 2009. It was only afterwards that it started to become feasible to get better coverage of the issues around the National Standards. But it may also be that the IES reform will prove too complicated for the media to feel they can make much of a story of it for the general public.
Valued and ignored expertise
My first response to the IES is to ask where the Government has been getting its ideas from, as it wouldn’t be my choice of how to spend an extra $359 million to improve our education system. (I would go for reinforcing professional cultures through higher quality professional development and more resources especially more teachers and teacher aides. And I would put more money into special education). There is a section of the report on ‘Evidence’ but despite its various qualifiers it is weak. In particular few of the sources are from refereed academic journals. We should be concerned about the repeated use of McKinsey reports, described by Frank Coffield in the Journal of Education Policy as having ‘an impoverished view of teaching and learning’, a ‘thin’ evidential base and ‘implausible’ arguments. The IES working group report also draws on the education ideas of the OECD and Andreas Schleicher but these have been causing concern to education experts around the world. And then there is Michael Fullan, whose perspectives are ambiguous enough to have wide appeal.
There are a few New Zealand academics referenced, ones often cited by the Ministry of Education. They are not all bad, but it would be good to see the Ministry trying to get alternative advice for a change. Its unlikely though, as this has been a particularly ‘tribal’ government in the sense that people with expertise are considered either ‘in’ with it or not, in which case they are persona non grata. I’m certainly in the latter group although when I ran into Hekia Parata recently, she told me not to take her Ministerial dismissal of my research personally. And when the Hon. Anne Tolley mentioned me in the newspaper, it was to invite me to keep my seditious views to myself.
The IES working group report also includes a statement from the NZEI that explains that the evidence section was only produced by the Ministry towards the end of the deliberations underlying the report. This is interesting as the limited depth of analysis does indeed suggest post-hoc rationalisation. (Again a similar thing happened with the National Standards). Originally the proposal might have been partly about PISA shock - the sense of political crisis and knee-jerk policy reaction that typically occurs when a country drops in the OECD’s test rankings. On the other hand the IES is very much a business approach to quality – using financial incentives to get the job done – and such corporate perspectives are pronounced within the Wellington beltway. Finally there is bound to have been enthusiasm to rein in ‘the teachers’ as they have not taken well to many of the policies of this Government.
Hollowed out
There are good reasons for teachers to be unhappy (and why primary teachers are especially unhappy, see below). It seems to me that what is happening to New Zealand schools involves a thinning or hollowing out of the education culture that most New Zealanders grew up with. I am talking about the not-so-gradual decline of professional development, professional resources, educational research, teacher education, curriculum coverage, special education, funding, support for leadership, morale, moral purpose and security of work. There may be a few brighter spots in this generally gloomy picture of schools such as some kinds of targeted interventions and parent involvements, digital learning and ‘modern learning environments’. But in general it’s hard to see that much has really been getting better in New Zealand schools since the 1980s, with some substantial steps backwards under the current government.
What is happening is that children and young people are being commodified and schooling is becoming less genuine. There is a foreshortening of possibilities for school leaders and teachers in resolving their daily problems and a general decline in the vitality of teaching and less opportunity for progressive practice. Where teaching is not in decline it is often because educators are working against the grain of policy rather than being supported by it. To borrow from Brian Picot, it's a worsening system but still some good people.
There are already some significant elements of privatisation in all of this and it seems there will be much more to come unless we have a change in direction at the election. One of the concerns about the IES is that there are other policy developments occurring in the background around legislation, funding, roles, structures and digital technologies to which the IES will be linked in ways that are yet to become apparent. This is why the working group requested information about the links to other policies as outlined in Part Two of the report.
It is into this general context of decline and uncertainty/threat that the IES is being dropped and seen variously as a silver bullet, a life raft, another form of control or as largely irrelevant to the real problems faced by schools. Although it is described in the report as ‘a system change’ (in a favourable sense), this requires much faith in this form of collaboration and incentivising having a positive impact on school culture. Its easier to see the new arrangements being harmful or not making much difference. The IES is also not going to simply undo the various problems within the system as mentioned above and these should not be overlooked during the debates around the new policy.
Finally it is important to be realistic about the impact of wider social pressures on schools, a point made repeatedly by the NZEI over the least few months. The changes mentioned above are coupled with wider shifts that are also hollowing out society such as insecure housing and increasingly unequal incomes. The IES could easily contribute to the politics of blame where schools are being increasingly held accountable for the effects of these wider concerns. Certainly the evidence section of the working group report gives the most optimistic reading of research around teacher and school effects. A more realistic reading would not attribute so much power to any school-based intervention.
Less principled
Our school system is also becoming less principled by the day as it is infected by managerialist politics and as it gradually becomes more privatised. The problem is most acute in the education agencies as they are in a contractual relationship with their Ministers and it is that relationship that has to be prioritised. And a profit motive is generally central to the private organisations the agencies contract out to. But other national organisations that support schools are also in trouble. STA is clearly in the pocket of Government rather than really representing the interests of the boards it works with. University researchers and teacher educators have the benefit of their ‘critic and conscience’ clause but are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds. NZCER is the same. Funding for university-based professional development has become insecure from year to year, or even a few months ahead.
Within the school system the rot is mostly in the early childhood sector (now highly privatised but fighting to stay authentic) and in secondary. Secondary school principals are effectively running large businesses and schools compete with each other for students. Where they enthusiastically market themselves, there is often little honesty about how schools gain advantage on the back of their intakes nor much concern about the impact of marketing on other schools and on the good of the overall student population in the area. It is the prosperity of the individual institution that nearly always counts.
The primary sector is the least infected by managerialism so far (less privatised, less need to be competitive, less big business, less able to cope with ‘paperwork’) with most within this area remaining committed to a broad, progressive, child-centred education. This is why they were willing to create such a fuss over the introduction of National Standards and it was a wonderful thing to see people standing up for what they believed in. But the Government pushed on with the Standards and the tone of the primary sector is also now slowly changing towards making a virtue out of political necessity.
This situation probably helps to explain the very different responses of the PPTA and NZEI to the IES (along with the more obvious differences between the sectors). Whatever other justifications they may raise, PPTA would struggle to go further in promoting a social justice agenda to their membership ahead of the undoubted financial incentives. The environment of collaboration implied by the IES is also seen as a good thing by the PPTA given the competitive climate within their sector. In contrast the membership of the NZEI will see little merit in the IES for the culture of the primary sector. Their concern will be its potential for being controlling and divisive and many will see it as yet another blow to the work they are committed to.
And a few other points about the report
There are some other noteworthy points in the report. It’s not going to be compulsory for a school to be part of a ‘Community of Schools’. But it effectively will be as promotional prospects are involved and ‘access to the new roles …and to Inquiry Time would be contingent on membership of a recognised Community of Schools' (p.1).
The new roles open up plenty of scope for new power differentials and resentments within and between schools. Tensions will also arise because ‘Communities of Schools’ are expected to be especially responsive to particular groups who are currently not achieving well. This is fair enough as national policy but at the local level within communities of schools these groups will be very unevenly distributed across schools.
It is noted that ‘Boards will need support to fulfil their role in IES’ (p.2). Boards of Trustees already have too much responsibility for a voluntary role. In many schools it falls back on the principal to know what to do anyway.
Finally, there is to be the development of new sets of professional standards for each role and the use of independent experts to assess them. The problem with this plan is that professional standards, except of the broadest kind, tend to stultify practice and be unresponsive to local contexts. These ones are clearly not intended to be of the broadest kind (see p.12). They will be very time-consuming to develop and assess. Lucky old those who end up on the ‘Writing Group’, don’t you think?
*************
Martin Thrupp is Professor of Education at the University of Waikato.
© Scoop Media

Teaching Learning Leading


Posted: 07 Aug 2014 10:02 PM PDT
A number of years ago I attended a Teachers Matter conference where I heard Dr Rich Allen speaking. During Dr Rich Allen's presentation he stated the following "If the bum is numb the brain is the same". This little statement has stuck with me and I have quoted it numerous times in the years since.

Last night I was having a read of various things and an article about the Real Reason Why Children Fidget caught my eye and it seemed to fit with that little statement from Rich Allen

The article suggests that many of our children are not moving as much as they used to or need to and this is impacting on their learning and even the development of their balance and core strength. I think some of the following school based and lifestyle factors contribute to this area of concern:
  • in many education systems we take young children (5 and 6 year olds but sometimes younger) and set them up in classrooms where they are expected to sit for significant periods of time, often listening and concentrating... that is hard work for the brain 
  • we know that developing gross and fine motor skills supports development in reading and writing and yet we often expect them to learn to read when perhaps physically they are not ready to do so 
  • physical movement increases oxygen supply to the brain which aids concentration and eases weariness and yet in our curriculum overloaded days physical education and opportunities for movement are scheduled into specific time slots which lacks the flexibility to fit with the needs of our learners
  • the school day is long, it is divided into periods of concentrated work with usually 2-3 breaks during the day for self directed movement but not all children choose to be active in those break times either  
  • after school many children have homework which is again sitting down and often reading and writing based 
  • after school many children are coming home to sit down and watch TV or play with/use other digital devices that involve little varied movement 
  • through heightened health and safety measures children are not having the same opportunities to climb trees and take other 'responsible' physical risks where they get to develop balance and core strength in natural play 
So let's go back to Rich Allen's statement. If children have gotten to the stage that they are fidgeting then perhaps as teachers we need to consider that this is a signal that learning is being impacted and we need to change tack for a moment. I used to do a lot of observations of teaching and one thing I did as a norm was to sit on the mat with the children, one reason being it helped me identify how long was too long and pass that feedback on to the teachers I was observing. As teachers we are often sitting on more comfortable chairs or moving around more than our students as we stand to explain something or walk around engaging with different children while they sit at their desks working so we may not truly appreciate just how long our students have actually been sitting. It is worth considering. I know I get really uncomfortable when I have to sit for too long and when I am thinking about how uncomfortable I am, I am not concentrating on what someone else is saying to me! 

There are many ways to address this, some easier than others to be sure, and here is a small list for a starter (I am sure that you will have a whole heap to add and would be keen to hear ): 
  • have regular brain breaks or energisers within your day, a quick one I used with some of my classes was calling out two body parts and we had to get them to touch i.e. knee and nose, elbow and hip, ankle and elbow, toe and nose etc... this often involved us moving and stretching our bodies in all sorts of shapes to try and make it work! Another one was balancing on different body parts i.e. bottom and 2 elbows, 1 knee and 1 elbow, 1 foot and 1 knee etc. 
  • if you see some children getting edgy and fidgety do a quick energiser to shake it off, get the blood moving and then get back into it 
  • when doing partner chats or think/pair/share why not encourage the children to stand 
  • allow the children to lie down to hear a story 
  • when doing fitness or physical education think of encouraging movement in lots of different way like rolling and swinging and hanging upside down as well as balancing
  • think about how we teach, are there different ways we could help the children engage with the topic of learning that isn't based on sitting and listening or reading and writing? That is not to say that literacy isn't important, I am just suggesting that we explore different ways of working. Even walking around and reading might help or writing spelling words with different parts of your body might help.   
  • I used to do a short yoga session with one class I had every morning before we did maths, I think it made the maths sessions calmer for us all, I know it helped me anyway 
  • stand, stretch and shake regularly 
  • and here's a wee tip from Karen Boyes that works to support those children then really need to move a little bit... give them a piece of bluetak to have in their hands and fiddle with, I used this recently for a couple of little gentlemen and it seemed to work in terms of reducing distracting behaviour for other students 
A good friend was sharing some of her learning with me recently and commented that one of the key things she took from a recent course was that 'all behaviour is communication', it's another favourite statement to share. If fidgeting is behaviour then as teachers I would suggest we need to consider what it may be communicating and if there is something we could do about it that could help our children to get more out of the learning opportunities they have. 
Posted: 07 Aug 2014 04:10 AM PDT
Posted: 07 Aug 2014 04:05 AM PDT

Unlocking the idea of ‘capabilities’ in science


According to our curriculum, all students should become responsible, thoughtful citizens in society. The ‘science capabilities’ play a vital role in teaching and learning, writes ROSE HIPKINS.
Why read this paper?
Five Science capabilities were recently published on TKI. When teachers first encounter them, it is common for them to ask why they were called ‘capabilities’. Some teachers don’t like the thought of being asked to consider yet another idea on top of The New Zealand Curriculum’s key competencies.
If this is how you feel, this paper might help. It explains why the capabilities were developed (i.e. what they are supposed to ‘do’ in terms of teaching and learning), why they were called that, and how they fit in with our curriculum’s key competencies.
Why were the capabilities developed? (How do they relate to the Curriculum?)
The capabilities were developed to show some explicit ways to “join the dots” between all of the following:
  • the content strands of the science learning area
  • the ‘overarching’ Nature of Science (NOS) strand
  • the statement in the front of NZC that outlines why all students should learn science
  • the key competencies
  • some existing resources designed to support learning in science.
The New Zealand Curriculum says all students should become “responsible citizens in a society in which science plays a significant role”. Each capability encapsulates something that is needed for that ambitious goal to be met. Here are the definitions  from the webpage:
Gather & interpret data: Science knowledge is based on data derived from direct or indirect observations of the natural physical world and often includes measuring something. An inference is a conclusion you draw from observations – the meaning you make from observations. Understanding the difference is an important step towards being scientifically literate.
Use evidence: Science is a way of explaining the world. Science is empirical and measurable. This means that in science, explanations need to be supported by evidence that is based on, or derived from, observations of the natural world.
Critique evidence: In order to evaluate the trustworthiness of data, students need to know quite a lot about the qualities of scientific tests.
Interpret representations Learners think about how data is presented and ask questions such as: What does this representation tell us? What is left out? How does this representation get the message across? Why is it presented in this particular way?
Engage with science: This capability requires students to use the other capabilities to engage with science in “real life” contexts.
Each capability sounds really simple. For science teachers these ideas will certainly be familiar. Interpret Representations and Engage with Science both map directly onto the Curriculum’s NOS sub-strands of Communicating in Science and Participating and Contributing. The first three capabilities map to Understanding about Science if the focus is on scientists’ work and to Investigating in Science if the focus is on students’ own work.
So what exactly do the capabilities add, and why did we think something new was needed? I’ll use an example to illustrate and explain the “something extra” that the idea of capabilities brings.
At least ten resources sit behind each capability. Each resource models an idea for explicitly integrating an aspect of the nature of science into teaching and learning by making a simple adaptation to an existing resource. The general idea is to provide rich experiences that will demonstrably contribute to building the capabilities over time, helping students to become more discerning when they engage with science as responsible citizens.
Getting beyond the rhetoric of “responsible citizenship”
Can science teaching and learning in school really contribute to The New Zealand Curriculum’s vision of students becoming “responsible citizens in a society in which science pays a significant role”? As I’ve just noted, the aim of the capabilities resources is to show how to add that something extra to explicitly and deliberately support this goal. I’ll now turn to a real dilemma to illustrate what the capabilities approach could add.
With three colleagues, I’ve just written a short book called Key Competencies for the Future (Hipkins, Bolstad, Boyd & McDowall, 2014). We devised a futures-thinking process, based around some wicked problems, and used this to explore the sorts of things that students will need to be capable of doing if they are going to build proactive futures rather than wait for whatever is coming down the line. Climate change is one the wicked problems we chose. We used it as the basis for a discussion of the challenge of sorting out conflicting knowledge claims and deciding who to trust. That’s a pretty fundamental citizenship responsibility. The slightly abridged table in Fig 1 comes from this chapter.
Have a look at this table. Pick just one of the strategies that might be used to deliberately mislead people and then go back to the descriptions of the five capabilities. Could they potentially help with spotting deliberate misinformation? For example:
  • If you have had lots of varied experiences of seeing how important it is to critique evidence and to deliberately seek out and address counter-arguments (Capability 3), would you be more likely to spot the fallacy behind “impossible expectations”?
  • If you had explored different ways to present information and had seen for yourself that different modes have their strengths and drawbacks (Capability 4), would you be more likely to understand the “Climategate” conversations as discussions about how best to communicate complex ideas?
  • If you had been challenged to think about the sufficiency of evidence (Capability 2) would you recognise “cherry picking”?
Fig 1: Strategies used to deny or explain away climate change
This set of strategies comes via the New Zealand-based Hot Topic website and has been drawn from the book titled Climate change denial: heads in the sand.
Conspiracy theories: for example, “Climategate”. This media scandal centred on a series of email communications between several groups of scientists. The scientists said they were discussing how best to represent their data so it could be understood by the public. The climate change sceptics claimed the messages between the scientists were evidence that they were conspiring to create misleading data sets.
Quoting fake experts: The British peer Lord Monkton, who toured New Zealand at the start of 2013, is a climate-change sceptic. He is not a climate change scientist but used his social status in the UK to lend authority to his personal views about climate change. Climate-change scientists said he had no authority to make knowledge claims in their expert area and should not be using his status to do this. As the headline at the start of this chapter shows, Lord Monkton deflected critique of his arguments as personal attacks on him – and of course, there was a personal element because of the way he was using his personal status.
Impossible expectations: This strategy involves sceptics saying that scientists should be certain before we need to listen to their knowledge claims, and that they should be in total agreement with each other. Scientists say they cannot and will not give such assurances of certainty. The central endeavour of science is to doubt and test knowledge claims to ensure their robustness. Doubting and debating comes with the territory. The uncertainties of complex systems change provide a further complication. Because outcomes of complex systems are emergent and unpredictable, certainty about climate changes is impossible, no matter how well scientists do their work.
Misrepresentations and logical fallacies: Some sceptics claim that the climate changes happening now must be natural because the climate has changed in the past. Scientists would certainly agree that the climate has changed in the past but argue that the logic of this argument is flawed. For example it assumes that all instances of climate change will have the same underlying causes. In cases like this, sceptics call on common-sense ideas and experiences to support knowledge claims. This poses real challenges for scientists because their rebuttals are often counter-intuitive and harder to understand.
Cherry picking evidence: Sceptics might say, for example, that a colder winter than usual is evidence that warming can’t be happening. Again they draw on common-sense experiences to look for seeming exceptions and counter-examples. Scientists would say that all the relevant evidence must be considered, not just selective parts. For them, counter-examples need to be carefully explored for what they might teach us that we don’t yet know. They should be taken as opportunities for knowledge-building, not confirmation of existing views.
The questions I’ve just asked relate to what we’d like adults to do. But when do we think this sort of capability-building should and can begin? The resources that sit behind each capability directly address this question by showing how to begin with really simple experiences at curriculum levels 1-2 and gradually build up from there.
The questions also assume a willingness to engage with contexts and controversies that could crop up in any number of ways and places. How much experience is needed before you can recognise the relevance of school learning experiences to the challenge at hand? Obviously, the more the better, but probably only if the connection between now and possible future relevance is an explicit focus for discussion. Students need to experience what these conversations feel like and sound like. The capabilities resources add this layer by identifying the link between the activity and the citizenship goal. They do this under the heading “What’s important here?” in each resource.
The biggest challenge of all relates to dispositions. You can’t make people critically engage with science. If we want today’s students to do so as tomorrow’s citizens we have to show them how, give them lots of practice, and support them to see these as things they can do, and want to do, for themselves. A few unrelated experiences in school science experiments won’t be enough because demonstrations of capability are multifaceted and context-specific, and you have to want to deploy them. For these reasons capability-building requires lots of related experiences that make a powerful impression on students and that build over time.
Why not just call them competencies?
The New Zealand Curriculum defines the key competencies as “capabilities for living and lifelong learning” (p.12). But what does this actually mean? We could read this sentence as if key competencies and capabilities are synonyms. I don’t think they are, and the difference isn’t just splitting straws. Let me explain why.
Several decades ago, the economist Amartya Sen and the American political philosopher Martha Nussbaum devised a ‘capabilities approach’ to address social justice issues that arise from economic inequalities. Typically, when economists want to tell how well a nation is doing, they measure things like GDP and the average wage. But broad-brush measures such as these smooth over huge differences between individuals and groups. Some people are simply better placed to take advantage of opportunities to maximise their employment/earning opportunities. The capabilities approach addresses inequalities by saying that we should focus on whether people are capable of making good use of opportunities that are potentially available to them. If not, we should ask why not and do something about it.
A lot of researchers in special education, or those who research the impact on learning of things like poverty, poor health, or racial violence (and sometimes all of these in combination), have picked up on this connection and brought these ideas from economics into education. The following quote illustrates what the approach adds to traditional thinking about educational opportunities:
“It is important to highlight the difference that the capabilities literature makes between one’s capability and one’s ability: If I were to discover that a world-renowned scientist was giving a lecture at my university, I would think it would be a wonderful opportunity to hear her speak. However if I discover that the talk will be given in French, the value of the opportunity is diminished (for me) because I do not speak French and I am not capable of making use of the opportunity. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to go out and learn French.” (Scherrer, 2014, p.206)
Jimmy Scherrer contrasts what he calls a capabilities perspective with a resources perspective. The latter looks to things such as school funding, or teachers’ levels of expertise when addressing inequality of achievement and/or opportunity. The capabilities model doesn’t neglect these things, but says they are not enough as measures of how well we are doing in meeting the challenge of educating all our students in ways that allow them to become the people they are capable of being.
The concept of capabilities starts from the premise that there are fundamental things that people need to be able to access to make the most of new opportunities. Martha Nussbaum developed this aspect of the capabilities model to describe a basic set of 10 capabilities that every person needs in order to become the person they are capable of being. But capabilities cannot be treated as if they are just individual possessions. Amartya Sen refused to name specific sets of capabilities because he said this could lead people to neglect the role of contexts in determining whether or not capabilities can be demonstrated. He noted that public reasoning strongly influences opportunities to demonstrate capabilities. By this Sen meant things such as the ethical and political frameworks that enable or constrain certain ways of being and doing. He also noted the influence of what he calls epistemic reasoning, which is the thinking (often tacit) that determines whose knowledge ‘counts’. These two interrelated aspects – the personal and the contextual/public are neatly summed up in the following quote:
“What are capabilities?” Martha Nussbaum (2011) asks. She replies, “They are answers to the question, ‘What is this person able to do and be? … They are not just abilities residing inside a person but also the freedoms or opportunities created by a combination of personal abilities and the political, social, and economic environment” (Scherrer, 2014, p,20).
We’ve tried to keep both personal and public aspects of capability embedded in the new resources. We’ve named a basic set of five science capabilities. These are based on the Nature of Science research literature but we are very aware that students will need many other related capabilities if they are to engage with science as responsible citizens. We couldn’t possibly name all the combinations that might be needed so we’ve gone for a strong manageable core set that is likely to underpin lots of others. We’ve assumed that students will need appropriate and ongoing learning opportunities if their potential capabilities are to grow stronger over time. The resources model the scaffolding of conversations about important aspects of the ‘public reasoning’ envisaged by Sen. Conversations about which knowledge to trust (and why), ethical considerations, and so on, arealready part of NOS approaches.
Getting back to The New Zealand Curriculum
Going back to the NZC definition of what key competencies are (or perhaps we would be better to say “are for”) we can also see that the idea of capability has a future-focused feel. It is about how today’s learning is preparing students for their lives outside of school, and for going on learning in their futures. In the Key Competencies and Effective Pedagogy project, we found that all the teachers whose stories we gathered had dual learning purposes in mind. There was a sharp focus on the knowledge and skills that are the traditional fare of learning, but this was combined with a thoughtful rationale for how and why the learning was contributing to students’ futures – to the people they could be and become.
Fig 2 is a slightly abbreviated summary of one story from the Key Competencies and Effective Pedagogy project, which we also included in the climate change chapter of Key Competencies for the Future. As you read it, consider how this teacher’s students were potentially building future citizenship capabilities at the same time as they were learning how to conduct more robust investigations as part of their current school learning.
Fig 2: Is there such a thing as healthy chocolate?
Right at the start of the school year, the students in this year 11 science class looked at an advertisement for 'healthy chocolate'. Their teacher asked them to discuss whether or not they trusted the claims made in this advertisement. They were encouraged to justify their decisions and record their thoughts on whiteboards, post-its, or electronic forums. The teacher then gave the students some ‘evidence’ behind the claim. They had to sort and interpret this for themselves, and then revisit the advertisement to consider their original decision. Had it changed or stayed the same? Why or why not?

In small groups, students then used a framework provided by the teacher to build a checklist of things to look for in trustworthy science. They then applied the checklist to a range of case studies to evaluate the science behind claims. Once they had some confidence with the checklist, the teacher gave them an article outlining the science behind the claim 'healthy heart chocolate' and asked them to evaluate this article using their checklist. Once they had done this, students revisited their decision about whether or not to trust the advertisement.

The checklist that students developed during this activity was subsequently used as they developed their own investigations. The teacher continued to challenge them to explain why she should trust their conclusions, using the language developed for the checklist. In subsequent NCEA assessments of students’ own investigations, the majority of Year 11 students were able to develop valid methods and evaluate their methods with specific reference to ideas within the checklist. In the following year the teacher observed these same students vigorously debating the methods they had devised for investigations. They were confident in their understanding of the nature of science investigations and able to express and justify their opinions and reflect on their methodology.
The discussion comes full circle when we take the idea that capability-building is for now and the future back to our curriculum’s statement about why all students should learn science. If we want them to fulfil their potential as responsible citizens, it’s up to us to ensure they build the capabilities they will need. Science capabilities are only one part of the overall mix of capabilities but as science teachers they are our responsibility. Some fortunate students will develop their science capabilities anyway. But many others depend on us to help them be and become the responsible citizens they are capable of being.
-          Rose Hipkins is a chief researcher at NZCER in Wellington, New Zealand. She leads NZCER’s work related to how the key competencies in the New Zealand Curriculum are understood and enacted.

References

Hipkins, R., Bolstad, R., Boyd, S., & McDowall, S. (2014). Key competencies for the future. . Wellington: NZCER Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2011) Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Scherrer, J. (2014). The role of the intellectual in eliminating the effects of poverty: A response to Tierney Educational Researcher, 43(4), 201-207.
More discussions you could read:
Hipkins, R. (2013). Competencies or capabilities: What's in a name? Set: Research Information for Teachers, 3(3), 55-57.
Hipkins, R., & McDowall, S. (2013). Teaching for present and future competency: Lessons from the New Zealand experience. Teachers and Curriculum, 13, 2-10. Retreived from http://tandc.ac.nz/index.php/tandc/article/view/5
Smits, H. (2013-2014). Competencies or capabilities? Alberta Teachers' Association Magazine, 94(3). Retrieved from http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA%20Magazine/Volume-94/Number-3/Pages/Competencies-or-capabilities.aspx

Why Some Schools Are Selling All Their iPads

http://m.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/08/whats-the-best-device-for-interactive-learning/375567/

At Hillsborough Middle School in New Jersey, students watch an online lesson on Roman life in Jennifer Harmsen’s 7th-grade social studies class. (Meghan E. Murphy)
For an entire school year Hillsborough, New Jersey, educators undertook an experiment, asking: Is the iPad really the best device for interactive learning?
It’s a question that has been on many minds since 2010, when Apple released the iPad and schools began experimenting with it. The devices came along at a time when many school reformers were advocating to replace textbooks with online curricula and add creative apps to lessons. Some teachers welcomed the shift, which allowed their students to replace old poster-board presentations with narrated screencasts and review teacher-produced video lessons at any time.
Four years later, however, it's still unclear whether the iPad is the device best suited to the classroom. The market for educational technology is huge and competitive: During 2014, American K-12 schools will spend an estimated $9.94 billion on educational technology, an increase of 2.5 percent over last year, according to Joseph Morris, director of market intelligence at the Center for Digital Education. On average, he said, schools spend about a third of their technology budgets on computer hardware.
Meanwhile, the cost of equipment is going down, software is improving, and state policies are driving expectations for technology access. “It’s really exciting,” said Douglas Levin, executive director of the State Educational Technology Directors Association, “but at the same time it’s really challenging for schools to have confidence when they make a decision.”
iPads have so far been a gadget of choice at both ends of the economic spectrum: in wealthier schools with ample resources and demand from parents, and in low-income schools that receive federal grants to improve student success rates. Last fall, enthusiasm for the Apple device peaked when Los Angeles Unified Schools, the second largest system in the nation, began a rollout out of iPads to every student.
However, the L.A. district quickly recalled about 2,100 iPads from students. At the end of the school year, leaders announced that schools would instead be allowed to choose from among six different devices, including Chromebooks and hybrid laptop-tablets. L.A. schools weren’t the first to falter: At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, Guilford County Schools in North Carolina halted an Amplify tablet program, and Fort Bend, Texas, cancelled its iPad initiative.
Hillsborough took a different approach. During the 2012–2013 school year, the district executed a comparative pilot, giving iPads to 200 kids and Chromebook laptops to an almost equal number. As other schools rushed into programs they would later scrap, Hillsborough took a more cautious approach, hedging its bets and asking educators: How can we get this right?
***
In June 2014, seventh-graders filed into Jennifer Harmsen’s Hillsborough Middle School social studies class. They sat in a u-shaped forum of desks. Native American artifacts hung on the walls and a world map mural enveloped a corner of the room in blues and greens.
Students pulled Chromebooks from their book bags, opened them, and got to work. They watched a video lesson covering topics like aqueduct architecture and Roman numerals. When they finished, Harmsen directed them to put the devices in “listening mode,” and they snapped the lids down.
After receiving teacher and student feedback from the 2012–2013 school year, Hillsborough sold its iPads and will distribute 4,600 Chromebooks by the fall of 2014. The students in Harmsen’s class had been on Hillsborough’s iPad pilot team, and Harmstead admits she was a little disappointed when the district chose to go with Chromebooks. She said being on the pilot iPad team transformed her classroom approach after 24 years of teaching and made her a digital-education advocate. But now that she’s spent a full year using the new device—a pared-down laptop that stores files on the Internet—she agrees with the decision.
Other iPad pilot teachers came to see the benefits of laptop capabilities, too. “At the end of the year, I was upset that we didn’t get the iPads,” said seventh-grade science teacher Larissa McCann. “But as soon as I got the Chromebook and the kids started using it, I saw, ‘Okay, this is definitely much more useful.’ ”
While nobody hated the iPad, by any means, the iPad was edged out by some key feedback, said Joel Handler, Hillsborough’s director of technology. Students saw the iPad as a “fun” gaming environment, while the Chromebook was perceived as a place to “get to work.” And as much as students liked to annotate and read on the iPad, the Chromebook's keyboard was a greater perk — especially since the new Common Core online testing will require a keyboard.
Another important finding came from the technology support department: It was far easier to manage almost 200 Chromebooks than the same number of iPads. Since all the Chromebook files live in an online “cloud,” students could be up and running in seconds on a new device if their machine broke. And apps could be pushed to all of the devices with just a few mouse clicks.
Hillsborough educators also tend to emphasize collaboration, and they found that Google’s Apps for Education suite—which works on either device—was easier to use collaboratively on Chromebooks.
“Our goal was [to find out] not really which device was better, per se, but which device met the learning goals,” Handler said.
***
Although Hillsborough ended up settling on Chromebooks, the laptop versus tablet debate is far from settled nationwide. The education market is currently split fairly evenly between the two types of devices, said Phil Maddocks, a market analyst at Futuresource Consulting. The laptop market is varied, but iPads account for the vast majority of tablets used in schools.
David Mahaley, a head administrator and active classroom teacher at Franklin Academy in Wake Forest, North Carolina, has had iPads in his classrooms for four years. The AP human geography course he teaches is paperless. His students use the iPad to annotate text, share with other students for collaboration, and even create e-books. He says the device makes his teaching job easier and gives the students more opportunities for digital creativity. He's encouraged other educators in the Wake Forest school system to use the 1,650 iPads for everything from learning materials to classroom assessments.
“I don’t own Apple stock or anything like that; I see the iPad as a great tool that we’ve been able to exploit,” said Mahaley. “I come at it as a practitioner.” Still, he acknowledges that different schools have different priorities, and the iPad might not be the best choice for students of every age and learning style. “You’ll probably never find the answer of what is the right device,” Mahaley said. “First you have to ask: What do you want the device to do for your children?”
***
To make the decision even more complicated, companies are constantly updating their products. In September, Baltimore County, Maryland, will pilot a new hybrid laptop-tablet in 10 elementary schools. Over the last year, teachers and students there have had the chance to experiment with more than a dozen different devices, said Lloyd Brown, director of the information technology department. When Baltimore leaders asked if teachers wanted a tablet or a laptop, the answer was, "Both."
At Hillsborough, the Chromebooks are currently being supplemented by 3,000 Nexus tablets, handed out by Google as part of a new pilot program. Susan Fajen's fourth-grade classroom is now littered with devices. Students work together in pairs, elbow to elbow, one holding a tablet, the other typing on a laptop.
During the past year, Fajen’s kids used tablets to record their voices for a project on tall tales, and to design parade balloons before making them in papier-mâché. But for word-processing projects, like blogging, the kids took out their laptops. Fajen paused when asked which device was better. “It’s hard to choose,” she said.
Money is, of course, a limitation. The Chromebook is the least expensive of the devices in question, with a retail price starting at $279. iPads start at $399. There are many hybrid and convertible tablet/laptops available, but one of the most popular, the Microsoft Surface Pro 3, starts at $799. And the HP EliteBook Revolve 810 Notebook, chosen by Baltimore County Public Schools, starts at $1,299. That's almost 4 1/2 times the retail price of a Chromebook, though schools do get bulk purchasing discounts and negotiate with the vendors for cheaper prices.
In Miami-Dade County, Florida, a large urban district with 320,000 students, schools are promoting a "bring your own device" model. “We can’t keep up with the trends in personal devices," said Paul Smith, supervisor of network services. Miami-Dade delayed its technology rollout after hearing of the Los Angeles iPad recall last fall; this year, it will have provided about 48,000 laptops: Ninth-grade history students will take them home, while seventh-grade civics students will each have a device in class. Some elementary students will have laptops on carts in their classrooms. Still, the system doesn’t have enough money to give a laptop to every student. So, leaders are urging parents to buy computers and will try to fill any gaps with district-issued devices.
“We’re doing as much as we can to move it from a school responsibility to home,” said Debbie Karcher, head of information technology for Miami-Dade County Public Schools. For now, only parents who work within the school system are eligible for credit-union loans to buy devices at the district’s bulk rate pricing. (About 30 percent of Miami-Dade schoolchildren have a mother or father employed by the district.) But Karcher believes that the declining cost of technology will make money less of an issue for most parents in a relatively short time.
“If you look back at the calculator, you almost had to be a millionaire to buy the first Texas Instruments,” Karcher said of the bulky scientific devices once needed in high school math and science classes. “Now it’s not even a technology we talk about anymore. I kind of see this going the same way.”

This story was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education-news outlet affiliated with Teachers College, Columbia University.
Nigel Latta

Thursday, 7 August 2014

10 Shifts

10 shifts for educators to make in the upcoming school year

1). Stop saying 'teaching' and start saying 'learning.' This simple diction choice makes a ton of difference when it comes to how we think about student success.

2). Stop viewing technology as 'one more thing' you have to do in your classroom. Utilize technology to enhance, broaden, and create opportunities for learning that were never before possible.

3). Stop settling for what has been at the cost of what could be. The world has never before had more opportunity and more possibility to make education both relevant and practical.

4). Stop thinking it's your school or district's responsibility to provide professional development learning opportunities. We all expect our kids to be self-autonomous learners who take some ownership of their learning; educators should be no different considering all the avenues and paths that exist.

5). Stop limiting the audience with whom your students can interact and communicate. We live in a globally connected world so there is no excuse for students to be doing work that is just for one teacher's eyes.

6). Stop trying to teach 'responsibility and accountability' by not accepting late work and not allowing redos on assignments and assessments.

7). Stop viewing education as something that is done to students and rather instead, as something that is done with and alongside students.

8). Stop doing what has always been done just because it's always been done. If it can't be justified with good cause, then yesterday was a perfect time to stop and start something new.

9). Stop fearing the unknown and use it as an opportunity to learn alongside your students. This not only sends a powerful message to your students, it also allows you to learn and grow as a teacher/student learning team.

10). Stop waiting for someone else to make a difference or make the change. You are the difference... you are the change.

User Generated Education

 Learner Questions

Education as it should be – passion-based.

Learners Should Be Developing Their Own Essential Questions

2013-03-24_0800
Having essential questions drive curriculum and learning has become core to many educators’ instructional practices.  Grant Wiggins, in his work on Understanding By Design, describes an essential question as:
A meaning of “essential” involves important questions that recur throughout one’s life. Such questions are broad in scope and timeless by nature. They are perpetually arguable – What is justice?  Is art a matter of taste or principles? How far should we tamper with our own biology and chemistry?  Is science compatible with religion? Is an author’s view privileged in determining the meaning of a text? We may arrive at or be helped to grasp understandings for these questions, but we soon learn that answers to them are invariably provisional. In other words, we are liable to change our minds in response to reflection and experience concerning such questions as we go through life, and that such changes of mind are not only expected but beneficial. A good education is grounded in such life-long questions, even if we sometimes lose sight of them while focusing on content mastery. The big-idea questions signal that education is not just about learning “the answer” but about learning how to learn. (http://www.authenticeducation.org/ae_bigideas/article.lasso?artid=53)
Although essential questions are powerful advance organizers and curriculum drivers, the problem is that the essential questions are typically developed by the educator not the learners.  The educator may find these questions interesting and engaging, but that does not insure that students will find them as such.
Jamie McKenzie describes what actually happens in most schools and classrooms in terms of questioning.
There have always been plenty of questions in schools, but most of them have come from the teacher, often at the rate of one question every 2-3 seconds. Unfortunately, these rapid fire questions are not the questions we need to encourage because they tend to be recall questions rather than questions requiring higher level thought. The most important questions of all are those asked by students as they try to make sense out of data and information. These are the questions which enable students to make up their own minds. Powerful questions – smart questions, if you will – are the foundation for information power, engaged learning and information literacy. Sadly, most studies of classroom exchanges in the past few decades report that student questions have been an endangered species for quite some time. (Goodlad, Sizer, Hyman, etc.) (http://fno.org/oct97/question.html)
Steve Denning in a Forbes article, Learning To Ask The Right Question, stated:
In education, there is often more emphasis on teaching than learning. The current test-driven system, which views teaching as imparting the right answers to the students, often does a poor job of equipping students to find the right question. If as I suggest the true goal of education is inspiring students with a lifelong capacity and passion for learning, it is at least as important that students be able to ask the right question as it is to know the right answer.
McKenzie (in 1997!) further discusses how the art of learner questioning by is especially relevant in this age of information abundance:
As long as schools are primarily about teaching rather than learning, there is little need for expanded information capabilities. Considering the reality that schools and publishers have spent decades compressing and compacting human knowledge into efficient packages and delivery systems like textbooks and lectures, they may not be prepared for this New Information Landscape which calls for independent thinking, exploration, invention and intuitive navigation. (http://fno.org/oct97/question.html)
Questioning comes naturally to children and seems to become a lost art and skill as people age.
Paul Harris, a developmental psychologist at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, argues that questions occupy a more central role than we realize in childhood cognitive development. Young children, he says, learn a great deal about the world simply by asking questions and listening to others.  When Harris thinks of children asking questions, he sees them performing a series of complex mental maneuvers. “The child has to first realize that they don’t know something…and that other people are information-bearing agents,” Harris said. “Then the child has to be able to, somehow or other, realize that language is a tool for shifting stuff from that person to them.”
Adults tend to rush through those steps, perhaps because they seem like second nature. But figuring out what makes a good question—or rather, what kind of question will get us the information we want—isn’t such a simple thing, even for grownups. It requires stopping to think about what we’re trying to find out, what the person we’re talking to might know, and what words we should use to coax them into helping us. Being good at asking questions is the art of identifying those gaps, sorting them, and figuring out how to fill them. Considered that way, it is a strange skill: “the ability to organize your thinking around something you know nothing about,” said Rothstein.
That can get harder as we get older, in large part because we grow more confident that we understand the world around us, and lose the capacity to see past our own beliefs. Business consultant and former Hewlett-Packard chief technology officer Phil McKinney in his book “Beyond the Obvious,” argues that crafting good questions is precisely what allows people to make imaginative leaps. “The challenge is that, as adults, we lose our curiosity over time. We get into ruts, we become experts in our fields or endeavors,” (http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/05/19/just-ask/k9PATXFdpL6ZmkreSiRYGP/story.html?camp=pm)
I believe most educators would agree that learning to compose a good question is a skill students should possess.  There is evidence that the art of asking a good questioning is a skill that most adults do not possess and that schools are not doing a good job teaching.  There are some classroom activities educators can do to teach questioning techniques.
Jamie McKenzie, Ed.D. and Hilarie Bryce Davis, Ed.D. propose in Classroom Strategies to Engender Student Questioning some of the following activities to have students generate their own questions.
  • Begin a New Unit with Students Developing Questions: Try starting a new unit by asking your class to think of questions that could be asked about the topic.
  • Create a Taxonomy of Questions: When students begin to label the different kinds of questions, they learn to select different kinds of questions to perform different kinds of thinking. No matter what the level of schooling, some kind of label can work effectively.
  • Ask Students to Create Questions as Homework (this would work with the Flipped Classroom): Put your classroom questioning typology to work with your homework assignments. If students read an assignment, let them form questions for the next day’s discussion. Ask them to:
    • write three comparison questions about the story they are reading;
    • identify the question the author was trying to answer;
    • find a question which has no answer, or two thousand answers or an infinite number of answers;
    • ask a question that is the child of a bigger question that they can then ask the rest of the class to identify.
Although, I am not big on formulaic learning, the folks at the Right Question Institute proposed process for students to learn to formulate their own questions.  This can be a good start to having students learn to compose questions. The QFT has six key steps:
Step 1: Teachers Design a Question Focus. The Question Focus, or QFocus, is a prompt that can be presented in the form of a statement or a visual or aural aid to focus and attract student attention and quickly stimulate the formation of questions. The QFocus is different from many traditional prompts because it is not a teacher’s question. It serves, instead, as the focus for student questions so students can, on their own, identify and explore a wide range of themes and ideas.
Step 2: Students Produce Questions. Students use a set of rules that provide a clear protocol for producing questions without assistance from the teacher. The four rules are: ask as many questions as you can; do not stop to discuss, judge, or answer any of the questions; write down every question exactly as it was stated; and change any statements into questions.

Step 3: Students Improve Their Questions
. Students then improve their questions by analyzing the differences between open- and closed-ended questions and by practicing changing one type to the other.
Step 4: Students Prioritize Their Questions. The teacher, with the lesson plan in mind, offers criteria or guidelines for the selection of priority questions.
Step 5: Students and Teachers Decide on Next Steps. At this stage, students and teachers work together to decide how to use the questions.
Step 6: Students Reflect on What They Have Learned. The teacher reviews the steps and provides students with an opportunity to review what they have learned by producing, improving, and prioritizing their questions. Making the QFT completely transparent helps students see what they have done and how it contributed to their thinking and learning. They can internalize the process and then apply it in many other settings. http://www.hepg.org/hel/article/507#home
A case study of this process in action can be found at Educators Want Students To Ask The Questions and the following Prezi does a great job describing the need for student-generated questions and the QFT process:
Wielded with purpose and care, a question can become a sophisticated and potent tool to expand minds, inspire new ideas, and give us surprising power at moments when we might not believe we have any.
Leon Neyfakh
Isn’t this a skill we want our learners to develop?