Today marked the second day of our whole school CPD event focusing on learning technologies. To kick off the day, my fellow coaches and I were given two slides and a few minutes to address the whole school with what we felt would be pertinent. This is a short post on the key topics I touched upon during this micro-keynote.
We are very fortunate at RCHK to work within such a technology enhanced learning environment. We have access to handycams, professional microphones (Clip on, shotgun and handheld) and a green screen recording studio. We have dozens of makeblock robots, Micro:Bits, Arduino’s and enough Lego Mindstorms for 2:1 use across an entire year group. We have Macbooks and iPads available on loan and Adobe products to download and use… But I’m just labelling STUFF.
These are just things, and when we focus too much on the things the conversation starts to turn towards technology implementation. People ask questions like “What can I have?” before they have figured out what they need.
Instead, I urge colleagues to draw out the concepts that the new technology represents. The new ways of thinking or enhancements to their teaching and learning. When we focus on the concepts, the conversation turns towards technology integration. We start asking questions like “How does it allow me to better connect with the pre-existing learning outcomes?” or “What new ways of thinking does it achieve that could not be achieved without it?”
So before our administrators, budget holders, teachers, support staff and technicians went forth to attend workshops designed to show off a myriad of wonderful shiny new technologies, I had one simple piece of advice:
Remember that it will be the successful integration of technology into our teaching and learning that drives successful implementation of technology into our learning spaces, not the other way around.
Later on in the day I was part of an evaluation meeting for our CIS accreditation self study when the following “Essential Question” from the evaluation rubric was shared with us:
“How is the school’s approach to teaching and learning influenced by digital resources and technology?”
Sensing the long road ahead I sighed and patiently uncapped my pen to put the horse back before the cart…
“How is the school’s approach to teaching and learningdigital resources and technology influenced by digital resources and technology?teaching and learning?“
‘Instructional Technology Coach’ is a nice title because it puts the instruction before the technology, so we’re on the right foot immediately. You see, I would like to start by addressing the misconception that LT Coaches are primarily teachers of technology or worse, as it removes us from teaching completely, IT support. If a school is sufficiently technologically enhanced then IT support should be available elsewhere within the school.
The IB has graphically outlined the working relationship between
the ‘concepts’ and the ‘things’ that we attempt to integrate and implement
across a school in the image below. The role of coach exists directly in the
middle of this cycle, connecting the
technology-inspired pedagogy and ways of thinking with the acquisition and use
of infrastructure and resources. We work closely with teachers, leaders,
technicians and budget holders to ensure that integration is both driving and supported by implementation.
To achieve this, coaches have three core responsibilities; to support technology integration through curriculum planning and development, deliver professional development opportunities for using the things and understanding the concepts and to find and share great resources or exemplar practices amongst colleagues to drive implementation. I find these three guiding statements so useful, I turned them into a Google Drawing to hang next to my desk.
This article addresses the first responsibility – finding a framework through which to engage with the curriculum planning for departments across the school. Whilst I find myself helping teachers on a 1:1 basis often, and this is always rewarding, it is by working with unit planning teams to enhance the teaching and learning within the curriculum that real, lasting integration can occur. There are three frameworks that I have found useful in achieving this:
Using the TPACK framework to identify common ground.
It is crucial to establish a common ground for teachers of all disciplines and coaches to communicate on. The TPACK framework really helped me to map the terrain surrounding coaches and teachers, and to better understand the shared understandings and language that we can communicate with.
TPACK’s intended purpose is to highlight the interactions
between three domains of knowledge required by a teacher to effectively teach
with technology. These domains are;
Content Knowledge (CK) The knowledge that teachers, as a subject matter experts, must call upon to identify the essential learning for the unit. This of course consists of concepts, theories and evidence but might also include best practices and methodologies carried out by experts in that discipline.
Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) This is the teaching and learning, including knowledge of the student learning styles, activity types, classroom management styles, methods of lesson and unit planning and assessment techniques.
Technological Knowledge (TK) This describes teachers’ knowledge of, and ability to use, various technologies, technological tools, and associated resources. TK concerns understanding EdTech, considering its possibilities for a specific subject area or classroom, learning to recognize when it will assist or impede learning, and continually learning and adapting to new technology offerings.
The TPACK framework has obvious utility for teachers to reflect on their own development in the three areas and for administrators to plan the necessary PD for successful teaching with technology. However, the framework really springs to life when we begin to discuss how the three domains interrelate with one another as we soon realise that they exist in a state of “essential tension”, and that a change in one will likely impact necessary change in the other two. If you’re new to TPACK, take a moment to explore the image below and consider which examples you have from your own practice of these interrelating domains of knowledge being applied.
So, what is required for successful Technological,
Pedagogical and Content Knowledge? Well, Koehler and Mishra (2009) put it well
when they first put forward the idea of a TPACK framework:
“TPACK is the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge to develop new epistemologies or strengthen old ones. “
Now if you read that without feeling at least a little overwhelmed, read it again. Koehlar and Mishra have identified a long string of competencies that are required for effective teaching with technology and it’s fair to say that all of us are better at some than we are others. My response here is that many hands make light work, and that by utilising your coaches you can cover this complex terrain quite well. An Instructional Technologies Coach will likely have less content knowledge than the teacher but more technological knowledge. Most coaches come from a teaching background and many retain at least a partial teaching load and so both the teacher and coach should have good pedagogical knowledge. The common language and knowledge area in which teachers and coaches can meet then is on the teaching and learning, that is going to take place.
It is important to note that throughout the process of identifying technologies that might transform the learning, the learning itself might change and it is the responsibility of the unit planning team to ensure that the content knowledge still addresses the prescribed SOI and assessments.
Using the RAT framework to evaluate the level of integration
When new approaches to teaching and learning through the use of technology have been identified by the teachers and coach, it is useful to identify the level of integration that has been achieved. There are many frameworks for assessing how successfully technology has been integrated, but a couple of years ago I was convinced to adopt the RAT model. It is simpler than most models whilst containing the essential elements for sufficient measurement and reflection, which is perfect when you are working across multiple frameworks like this.
The RAT model identified three levels of integration, outlined in the image below:
This reflection is an important step in realising what is being achieved with technology, and should be documented. Our primary school currently maintains a ‘Technology Integration log’ which allows our primary school coach, teachers and administrators to see how teaching and learning is being changed by the technologies we are using.
Using Levels of Collaboration to Identify the Support Required
When we have determined the technology that is being used, coaches should identify the level of support that is required by the teachers involved. Another way of thinking about this is, by how much does the teacher need to collaborate with the coach to achieve the integration?
High – Full Collaboration Full collaboration involves co-planning the learning process and team teaching when the technology is in use.
Medium – Coaching Coaching involves providing ‘just-in-time’ training on the technologies in use and some assistance on planning and resource development.
Low – Mentoring Mentoring involves offering help and advice as required but all or some teachers are capable of successfully integrating the technology into their teaching and learning and supporting one another.
By identifying the level of support required by each staff
member, an idea of how intensive the unit is going to be on the coaches time can
be drawn. Overlapping units that consist of high levels of collaboration should
be avoided or teachers may not receive enough support.
Bringing it into the Middle School Planning Process
To recap, we have identified three frameworks for having a
conversation with coaches throughout curriculum planning and development:
The TPACK Framework, which allows us to identify
the knowledge domains required by teacher and coach to identify opportunities
for technology integration into the teaching and learning.
Use of the RAT framework to identify the level
of integration that is occurring.
The language of levelled collaboration to
identify the level of support that will be required by the coach.
The final challenge is to identify where this all fits into the planning cycle. In the MYP unit planner, teachers identify the concepts and contexts that lead them to crafting the statement of inquiry, inquiry questions, objectives, assessments and content before considering the learning process’ that will take place. This much can be done prior to inviting the coach into the planning process as the teachers apply their pedagogical content knowledge to determine the knowledge and skills that are essential learning for success in the planned assessments, and the best pedagogical structures for successful teaching and learning to take place. Once this is done, the conversation is ready to move towards how technology could be integrated to enhance the learning process.
Once the technology use has been mapped, coaches should utilise some of the reflection time prior to teaching the unit to identify the training and support that will be required and the scheduling and booking of equipment. Reflective conversations can then continue during and after the unit. I have detailed questions that might crop up at these stages in a copy of the unit planner below.
Overall, these frameworks combine to give a pretty good picture of the coaching process during curriculum planning and development. In the diagram below I have attempted to outline this process alongside the teaching process to highlight the interactions that will happen throughout.
This month I have been working with one of our technology superstars in the mathematics department to see if we could enhance a preexisting unit on angles by introducing the students to the Turtle library in Python. Each lesson would begin with a structured introduction to the math, followed by either an introduction to new Turtle commands or a deconstruction of an existing Turtle program and finally a challenge that required students to draw a word, shape or pattern. For building the challenges we are using Repl.It
The students took to the code a lot faster than we expected, which I think is a credit to the work being done in our primary school. The students already have three years of block based coding experience under their belt and my general impression from time spent within classes was that the students were very well prepared for transitioning to typed code.
To celebrate our students successes and the approach of the winter holidays, we challenged students to create some festive art using the knowledge and skills they have learned throughout the unit so far. The code for the christmas tree drawing shown above was shared with the students and deconstructed to introduce the functions in Python Turtle and to revisit the idea of a loop.
The tree could be broken down into the following four parts, each of which allowed us to discuss a little math, and a little syntax in Python Turtle:
The tree trunk – This was a simple square drawn once; it allowed us to remind students of the use of loops in Python Turtle.
The green triangle – This was defined as a function and called three times. It was the most complex block of code as it involved writing a function that called a loop and used the correct exterior angles for an equilateral triangle (See code below)
The star – This was an interesting block of code because it involved looping five times and again turning the value of an exterior angle for a five point star. I was happy to be teaching alongside a mathematics teacher when introducing this shape!
The baubles – These were a single function to draw and fill a circle, that was called at random locations around the tree.
Last week I ran a workshop for our Year 8 science teachers to prepare them for a Year 8 unit on electricity which has undergone significant rewriting to incorporate the use of Arduino microcontrollers and prototype electronics. By the end of the unit, students complete a Criteria D assessment which challenges students to;
a circuit designed to solve a problem and journal this process (Formative
assessment and skill building)
a report that;
how they have applied their scientific knowledge and understanding to address a
specific problem or issue
and analyse the the various implications of using this
technology and its application in solving a specific problem or issue
Apply scientific language
Document the work of others and
sources of information used.
The idea here is to create a Criteria D assessment that is more project focused and creative. By teaching students the skills necessary to use raw electronic components as a medium for creative problem solving we are opening up a traditionally theoretical and prescriptive unit into one that has space for student agency and inquiry. What I like even more about the unit, is that is goes a long way to demystify technology. Students come to like when they realize that many of the functions of the toys and machines around them rely on neither magic or overly complicated technology.
One thing that has proven to be invaluable in extending the unit this year has been the introduction of electronics block based coding and simulation to TinkerCad studio. This has allowed me to easily create a ‘Cheat Sheet’ so that teachers can reference both the correct physical wiring and the correct sequence of block based code for challenges that are set for students during the unit.
To achieve the necessary frontloading for this unit, we required just under a full day for teachers to become familiar with the many components that students will have access to and the platforms they will be using to prototype and to code their machines. I have copied a rough overview of the agenda I set for teachers below for anyone with the know-how to replicate. For those that don’t, feel free to contact me for advice on where to start.
Electronics Training Agenda
An introduction to the Arduino, LED’s, hookup wire and breadboards
Using resistors to protect components.
Constructing series and parallel connections on a breadboard
An introduction to TincerCad studio
Running the Blink program
An overview of common errors that students encounter
An overview of switches and controls (Buttons, potentiometers and tilt switches)
An introduction to using the serial monitor to print data received by the arduino
An introduction to servo motors and the programming
An introduction to sensors (Thermistors, LDR’s and sound sensors)
A final reflection and discussion on the teaching and learning process for this unit and the level of support that will be required (See my coaching framework)
This is definitely too much content for mastery to be achieved in a day, but I encourage teachers to embrace the unit as inquirers themselves; there are a wealth of websites and blogs for electronics projects online and in my experience almost every coding error that can happen has happened, and it’s solution has been found and discussed at length online. In fact, some of my favorite moments in supporting this unit have come when classroom teachers and student groups have been working through a genuine puzzle together and have had to move together through a logical and methodical approach to identifying and solving the problem. It is at these moments that teachers are able to authentically model perseverance and critical thinking because they are forced to work within the learning process instead of outside of it.
Disclaimer: This article is a draft of thoughts that are still developing. A canvas for connections that are still being made. Your thoughts and feedback are welcome in the comments section.
In this article I compare elements of the MYP unit plan and the Theory of Knowledge (TOK) curriculum and reflect on how an MYP Sciences course might be structured to better prepare students for TOK.
When I was asked to join the Theory of Knowledge department at my school, I was excited to explore a subject that was always a bit of a mystery to me. Now that I’ve spent some time teaching the course, I’m starting to reflect on what impact the experience might have on my capacity to better prepare my MYP students for their first encounter with the Theory of Knowledge course.
In TOK we spend a lot of time identifying knowledge claims and knowledge questions, which are absent from the MYP vocabulary. Whilst the usefulness of both first and second order knowledge claims are described in the TOK Guide, only second order knowledge questions are discussed. Their definitions and intended uses are;
First Order Knowledge Claims – claims made within an area of knowledge about the world. These will feature in examples offered in the essay and presentation illustrating the manner in which areas of knowledge go about the business of producing knowledge.
Second Order Knowledge Claims – claims made about knowledge itself within a subject. These form the core of any piece of TOK analysis.
Knowledge Questions – second order questions about knowledge itself that are not rooted within a subject area. They form the core line of inquiry from which second order knowledge claims are drawn, and first order knowledge claims from areas of knowledge are identified and discussed.
On knowledge questions, the TOK guide has the following to say;
“…the first task in trying to answer a TOK question is to establish an understanding of the key concepts involved. There may be a number of different ways of thinking about these concepts. Each might give rise to a different analysis and ultimately a different answer to the question.”
TOK Guide, IBO Publishing, 2015
This is where we find an explicit connection to the MYP framework. MYP teachers are taught to plan units by constructing a statement of inquiry that consists of key and related concepts and a global context. Whilst global contexts might be useful for preparing students for other areas of the IB Core, it is the key and related concepts that appear to give us a foothold for exploring first and second order knowledge claims within the MYP. The definitions of both from the MYP Guide are given below;
Key concepts –are broad, organizing, powerful ideas that have relevance within and across subjects and disciplines, providing connections that can transfer across time and culture.
Related concepts – grounded in specific disciplines, explore key concepts in greater detail, providing depth to the programme. They emerge from reflection on the nature of specific subjects and disciplines, providing a focus for inquiry into subject-specific content.
It is worth noting here that from their definitions, it is apparent why an understanding of key concepts is required for the successful answering of TOK questions; these are inherently interdisciplinary and more likely to address second order knowledge claims. Related concepts on the other hand are rooted in first order claims and are the basis of disciplinary education. Understanding this, we can now recognise the statement of inquiry as a second order concept that is being explored through the first order concepts within that discipline.
example 1: Scientists observe patterns and use them to construct systems that explain how the world works. (MYP Sciences Guide, 2014)
Students explore the second order concept of knowledge existing across a system using the scientific concepts that scientists use patterns of observation to construct models in science and that these models can be used to explain further observations.
example 2: Systems that are designed to meet an individual’s ergonomic requirements can increase their ability to function within the world. (MYP Design Guide, 2014)
This time students explore the second order concept that knowledge exists across a system using the design concepts of function and ergonomics.
example 3: Nations form alliances to protect their military, cultural and economic interests. (Individuals and Societies Guide, 2014)
In this final example, students explore the second order concept of systems using the individuals and societies concepts of conflict and cooperation.
Looking at these three examples together, we get a view of how students in the MYP should be prepared to discuss second order knowledge claims by the time that they reach the diploma programme. However, we must ask ourselves: Are we making these connections explicit enough to our students? Are we making these connections explicit enough to our teachers?
For many teachers new to the MYP, these concepts can seem a little abstract and their utility in teaching content knowledge and skills can feel a little vague. If this impression percists, these concepts fail to become more than a guide in the planning process and rarely enter class discourse in any meaningful way.
The MYP Guide does not treat key and related concepts so lightly, explicitly stating that;
Students need multiple opportunities to explore the concepts defined for each subject or discipline. Students should have meaningful inquiry into all of the key and related concepts for each relevant subject group at least once over the course of the MYP.
Over the course of the programme, students need to develop an understanding of the key and related concepts at increasing levels of sophistication and abstraction.
Summative assessments should offer students opportunities to reach the highest levels of achievement with regard to their conceptual knowledge and understanding.
How do we achieve “meaningful inquiry into all of the key and related concepts” in our classroom? For this, the MYP introduces inquiry questions…
Generating Conceptual Thinking and Inquiry in the MYP Classroom
To achieve meaningful inquiry (Beyond asking students to simply research a problem), the guide asks that we direct the teaching and learning that takes place using a framework of three types of inquiry questions;
Factual Questions – Challenge students to remember and describe a narrow range of correct answers. Promote recall and comprehension.
Conceptual Questions – Challenge students to analyse broader ideas with many correct interpretations. Promote analysis and application.
Debatable Questions – Challenge students to evaluate perspectives that involve a value judgement. Promote synthesis and evaluation.
[Do we need to address the already clear connections to Bloom’s cognitive domains here? Don’t want to move the conversation to cognitive domains, but it strengthens the argument that we should move through Factual -> Conceptual to a final Debatable stance where students synthesise or evaluate a problem or solution]
As we progress from factual to conceptual inquiry questions not only are we reaching higher levels of cognitive complexity (Bloom, 1956) but we are pulling students above the layer of content and into the realm of discussing key and related concepts. Here, we can prepare students for the TOK course by strengthening their vocabulary when discussing these concepts within your discipline.
Yet further still, when students are challenged with debatable questions they are challenged to develop and justify a value judgement in much the same way that the TOK course asks students to deal with knowledge claims (TheMYPTeacher). Further, Lenny Dutton has already create a wonderful array of concept driven questions and claims that can be used in various subject areas to allow students to practice developing and justifying conceptual understandings. (ExcitedEducator.com)
In a nutshell, this is it: MYP units best prepare students for TOK by progressing from factual questions about content to conceptual questions and claims about the key and related concepts that the unit is based on and then challenging students to develop and justify value judgements using their conceptual understanding.
The question now is how do we best achieve this and what might that look like?
A conscious and communicated effort to highlight the overarching concepts between disciplines will strengthen students ability to work with key concepts. For this to occur, departments need combined planning time to discuss overarching concepts to ensure that conceptual understandings are harmonious across the teaching body and are therefore harmonious across the teaching and learning that occurs.
Enhancement of the MYP vocabulary to strengthen connections between the programme and TOK. For example, in the sciences a laboratory assessment would be understood as a vehicle for students to synthesise and test knowledge claims using their observations and data. Essay tasks are seen as an opportunity for students to evaluate first order knowledge claims.
Further to an enhancement of the language, could opportunities for reflection on and/or assessment of conceptual understandings of second order claims that use key concepts be better built into the MYP unit planning process? Perhaps this is another utility for journaling/ePortfolios, or perhaps it is a further interpretation of the assessment criteria.
Interdisciplinary connections are powerful opportunities for students to realise the second order nature of key concepts. If interdisciplinary units were planned by not just subject teachers of the subjects involved, but experienced TOK teachers then perhaps this opportunity could be taken better advantage of.