- Bart Miller
- Deborah McCallum
- Dave Truss
- Dave Secomb
- Gallit Zvi
- Jason Graham
- Marina Gijzen
- Michael Kaechele
- Julie Milligan
- Gareth Jacobson
- Philip Cummings
- Tanya de Hoog
- Peter Skillen
- Rafael Angel
- Inquiry Partners
- Tania Ash
- tasha cowdy
- Louise Robitaille
“My Kids Suck at Inquiry.” Someone mentioned this and the other day, and I laughed, along with others, because it feels true so much of the time.
However, on reflection, is it the kids that suck at inquiry or should we be turning the lens back on ourselves?
We know that kids are natural born inquirers. Proven fact. They eat dirt. They ask a million questions. They stick their hands in light sockets. They take apart things. They make up imaginary trips to fairy land (all experienced first hand from my child and others).
However, as they get older and more “schooled,” they lose some of this curiosity. I love the essence of the PYP where inquiry should be at the heart of the program. In practice, it’s often a different story.
If we think our students “suck” at inquiry, it’s because we, as teachers and as admin, are doing something wrong. Here are what I see as some of the driving forces that kill inquiry:
- Same learning for everyone. That even means everyone doing the same math problem in exactly the same way. Everyone writing out a reading log. Everyone doing times tables fast facts. Worksheets.
- “Unit” on inquiry. We have inquiry slotted into one part of our day as a “unit.” I know the PYP devised this term, but it allows us to separate out “inquiry” from the rest of the day. How can we truly make learning transdisciplinary and inquiry-based? Having a “unit” of inquiry allows us to be lazy.
- Strict timetabling. Hard to get away with in most schools, but it stops flow and learning and …inquiry.
- 6 units per year. In upper grades, we have to “cover” 6 units a year, which always feels rushed, and being rushed has not helped allow for inquiry.
- Planners with a forced summative task assigned at the beginning. I know that backward’s planning makes sense. However, on the rigid PYP planner, and Managebac, which forces you through the steps of the planner, you need to come up with a summative assessment before you’ve even started the unit. This ends up often as a task, which the unit focuses on and doesn’t allow for more open inquiry.
- Silence. My students are loud, and I get it. However, forced silence, hand raising and traditional classroom management practices leave the teacher front and center and not the students.
- Planning done by the teachers and admin. Lack of student voice. When students aren’t driving curriculum, planning, school expectations, outside activities, etc…they don’t care as much. They aren’t as engaged, and they’re not going to be inquiring.
What else do you think? What kills inquiry? How can we improve ourselves and our schools so that students can continue with their natural born curiosity?
Originally published on Solid Ground: https://kdceci.wordpress.com/
‘Making’ is about empowering students to ‘make up’ their own minds—quite literally—regardless of the artifacts being constructed. This is the view I prefer to take.
‘Making’ should focus on taking charge of, and constructing, your mind—your learning. Making objects and artifacts is a means to that end. ‘Making’ is a central tenet of constructionism, tinkering and inquiry—or ‘tinkquiry’ as my colleague Brenda Sherry and I like to say. But it is not the whole story.
Don’t equate ‘making’ with ‘constructionism’. ‘Making’ ≠ ‘constructionism’— necessarily. One cannot assume that because kids are ‘making’ that they are building new schema—that you are embedding them in a constructionist pedagogy.
Seymour Papert and Idit Harel in 1991 said,
“It is easy enough to formulate simple catchy versions of the idea of constructionism; for example, thinking of it as ‘learning-by-making’. One purpose of this introductory chapter is to orient the reader toward using the diversity in the volume to elaborate—to construct—a sense of constructionism much richer and more multifaceted, and very much deeper in its implications, than could be conveyed by any such formula.” In Constructionism (Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1991).
The ‘Maker Movement’ isn’t Just About Electronics and Coding!
The maker movement has become extremely popular in the last few years and is usually associated with the ‘making’ of things with circuit boards, 3D printers, lego, found materials, wood shops, metal shops, coding/programming and other electronic gadgetry. It’s similar to DIY (Do It Yourself) – and ‘craft nights’. There are countless Maker Faires and Maker studios all over the globe.
But, is it only about ‘making with electronics’ and ‘coding’? No. I don’t believe it should be.
‘Making’ isn’t only about electronics and coding.
Building poems, art, music, mathematical solutions and so on are all part of the ‘maker movement’ in my mind. I think Seymour Papert might agree with me as you will read later on.
Building poems, art, music, mathematical solutions and so on are all part of the ‘maker movement’…
The Critical Part is the ‘Making of One’s Own Mind’.
Indeed, the critical part is the ‘making of one’s own mind’—the constructionist piece—not the nature of the artifact being made. As I suggested, making artifacts is the means to an end, in my opinion. Constructing one’s schema and texture of mind is the end-goal.
Now, of course, here I am telling you what I think about ‘making’ and ‘constructionism’ but I cannot think that you will merely learn it by reading. It will take my provocations and your efforts for you to construct your own understandings of these ideas—these constructs. As Papert and Harel said,
“If one eschews pipeline models of transmitting knowledge in talking among ourselves as well as in theorizing about classrooms, then one must expect that I will not be able to tell you my idea of constructionism. Doing so is bound to trivialize it. Instead, I must confine myself to engage you in experiences (including verbal ones) liable to encourage your own personal construction of something in some sense like it. Only in this way will there be something rich enough in your mind to be worth talking about.”
A long time coming!
This time, since information technology has been affordable and accessible, it was Seymour Papert and his colleagues who founded this notion of ‘children as makers’ – when he coined the term ‘constructionism’. Seymour studied with, and subsequently worked with, Jean Piaget who was instrumental in the origins of the constructivist learning theory—along with Jerome Bruner, Lev Vygotsky and others.
What is constructivism?
Constructivism is a theory which suggests that people actively construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world and are not merely passive recipients. These understandings arise through experiencing events and then reflecting on those experiences. If we encounter something new, we either assimilate it into our previous ideas and knowledge—our schema—or we must accommodate it by changing what we believe, therefore modifying our schema. Or maybe we just discard the new information as irrelevant.
Regardless, we are active creators of our own knowledge. This occurs through asking questions, exploring, and assessing what we know. It happens through inquiry.
Does this mean the teacher’s role is diminished?
Not at all. A constructivist approach celebrates the active role of the teacher in helping students to construct knowledge rather than to merely regurgitate meaningless facts. In constructivist classrooms, you will see project-based learning, problem-generation and problem-solving approaches, and inquiry-based activities where students are generating driving questions, generating potential solution strategies and digging into investigations.
You will see students making their knowledge and processes visible to the other students where it is all available for discussion and collaboration. Meaningless facts aren’t memorized in a decontextualized fashion but rather a meaningful body of knowledge is constructed and becomes part of the student’s interrelated collections of memories. The teacher’s role is far from irrelevant. It is critical as a facilitator, educator, and co-investigator.
Constructivism leverages the student’s natural curiosity about the world and how things work. Their engagement is invoked through respect of their current knowledge and real-world experience. Their hypotheses and investigative methods are honoured and honed.
So along comes Seymour Papert – and in the mid-sixties – begins to think very deeply about the role of kids making things——>publicly.
This is, as I said, when he coined the term ‘constructionism’.
“Constructionists believe that deep, substantive learning and ‘enduring understandings’ occur when people are actively creating artifacts in the real world.” Papert & Harel “http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html”
Constructionism holds that children learn best when they are in the active role of the designer and constructor. But the theory goes a step further.
Constructionism “is the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe.”
Constructionism Relies on Visible Thinking & Conversation. Making May Not.
But it is not merely the act of constructing that is essential. Powerful things happen when that act of constructing mediates deep conversation with others. The very act of articulating ideas, sharing thoughts, confusions, ahas, questions, potential solutions makes knowledge building explicit. Sometimes words are spoken. Oftentimes facial expressions and body language communicate. We might draw diagrams or build prototypes. All these serve to make the thinking visible and, therefore, discussable—not only with others but for oneself. We learn our subject matter well as we think hard about it and are very intentional about constructing not only the artifact at hand but also our knowledge and success.
…constructing, or making, is not enough…
Constructionist learning is very powerful due to the rich texture of this public creation of artifacts.
Let’s look at some of Papert’s work in action.
Alright. So it is clear that today’s ‘maker movement’ has strong roots in Papert’s ‘constructionism’, in Piaget’s constructivism, in Vygotsky’s social constructivism, in Dewey’s experientialism, and in Scardamalia & Bereiters’ theories of intentional learning and knowledge construction.
However, today’s maker movement is nearly always described in terms of ‘electronic’ making—or making with coding or robotics or lately 3d printing.
Making Up One’s Own Mind
But, I maintain that the real focus should be on helping students to ‘construct their own mind’—for to do so helps them to ‘take charge of their own learning’—which is not just a matter of student agency. It is also a matter of intentionality and skill in knowledge construction. The wraparound of a knowledge-building culture is essential in a ‘making’ environment to reach this goal.
So What Do You Make?
As Papert said, and I totally agree, it matters not whether one is making a sandcastle on the beach or a theory of the universe. I think what is important is that we understand the breadth and depth of constructionism and related theories and that we don’t merely equate making with constructionist learning.
So what do kids make? Have them make what moves them. Make something that matters. Make something hard. Have ‘hard fun’ as Seymour would say. But, above all, focus on crafting the surrounds—the culture—that encourages and supports kids in constructing new knowledge. Focus on the building of the mind as they are creating their public entities—be they poems, songs, multimedia presentations, other works of art or indeed more ‘maker faire’ robotics-based artifacts.
Make up your own mind on how to do this best.
There are now many books on the topic of ‘making’—but, these two are deeply rooted in a constructionist approach to ‘making’ because all of these authors have been central to building of this theory as colleagues of Seymour Papert.
- Invent to Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom by Sylvia Libow Martinez & Gary Stager, who say:
“Using technology to make, repair, or customize the things we need brings engineering, design, and computer science to the masses. Fortunately for educators, this maker movement overlaps with the natural inclinations of children and the power of learning by doing.”
- The Invent To Learn Guide to 3D Printing in the Classroom: Recipes for Success by David & Norma Thornburg and Sara Armstrong.
K-12 Learning Platform
Globaloria – Idit Harel is the founder and CEO of this online platform for courses in STEM, computing, game design and coding.
- Deep Understanding & the Issue of Transfer
- Scaffolding for Deep Understanding
- ThinkingLand – Helping Students Construct Knowledge with Multimedia
- Project Based Learning: Don’t Start with a Question
First published on The Construction Zone
A version of this post originally appeared on my website: http://www.thirstforthinking.org/thirst-for-thinking-blog
Embodied Cognition would appear to to moving our understanding of cognition and the creation of meaning beyond purely what is happening in the mind. However in school’s we still emphasise that the way that meaning is created is through inner contemplation outwardly expressed and supported by language.
Whilst this outlook of teaching an learning is perfectly valid; we set students a problem, give them time to think about it (either individually or collaboratively) and then ask them to express their responses either verbally or in some written form, should it be the only way we are empowering our students to create meaning?
The image above is one I created for my recent webinar for the IB ‘Beyond passive consumption’ (the archive of which is still available for viewing). In a very simple form it reflects the elements that we all use to create deep enduring meaning these being:
- Language: By this I mean a broad range of literacies (see my previous blog post)
- Mind: By this I mean the internal thinking that is going on. (obviously what is meant by the term thinking is a huge area and one explored for educators via the Visible Thinking work of Project Zero)
- Tools: By this I refer to the important interplay between the tools used, be these digital or manual, and the meaning we create. A good example of this being the image at the top of the page itself which uses a Powerpoint template image thus making me synthesis my thinking into the available template.
- Body: By this I refer to both the use of our body to learn, e.g. using our hands to build but also the impact of our bodies reactions to our creation of meaning e.g. whether we are stressed, tired, relaxed etc.
As mentioned above School’s tend to do a good job at using points 1 and 2 to help students to create meaning however by under utilising, and in some cases under valuing, points 3 and 4 are only tapping into half the means at their disposal to empower are students to create deep meaning.
To place this in a context. How do we move our classrooms from being constructiovist to being constructionist.
Here then are a few, hopefully useful and practical ideas as to how we can more fully exploit Tools and Body to ensure all students have a full range of ways to create meaning.
In a previous post on my own website, I discussed why so many educational technologies have failed to live up to the expectations surrounding them. In this post I proposed 3 P’s to ensure that the tools used in a classroom have the maximum impact on learning:
1) What do I hope the tool will achieve in terms of my students learning?(PURPOSE)
2)How am I going to make critical pedagogical decisions about the use of the tool? (PEDAGOGY)
3)How will I ensure my own knowledge of tool,pedagogy and my curriculum enables me to choose the correct tool to achieve my aims? (PREPARATION)
Often one or more of these 3 is missing as we choose the tool through which we want the students to create meaning. Indeed it is often ignored that the tool itself is impacting the meaning that is being created.
Kath Murdoch in her excellent new book The Power of Inquiry makes the following point:“(Inquiry teachers) see the learner as an active participant in the learning process. While the term ‘active’ relates to being physically active and having opportunities to engage in direct, hands on experiences it is vital that it is also understood in a cognitive sense” This link between the body and cognition is a vital one to make if we are not to fall into the trap of lots of busy work justified on the grounds that students are using their hands or moving around. We need to be actively aware of how student cognition may be impacted by the ability to manipulate real world objects and set up out classrooms accordingly. Students need to have access to a range of manipulative what ever their age range and be encouraged to build and experiment as part of the learnign process.
The second element when thinking of body is student awareness of their own bodily state and its impact of their learning. Do we allow students the power to make meaningful decisions on when they need to move around, stand or sit to help with their learning whilst being considerate of the learning of others?
This is a complex area in terms of classroom management and layout but one that requires more careful consideration in many setting rather than an assumption that sitting is always the best position for learning.
I look forward to reader comments as to how we can ensure that all of our students are fully engaged in developing meaning using all 4 areas I’ve outlined. Or indeed if people feel there are other areas that need consideration.
This post was originally posted in my Blog Ser y Estar.
Mathematics is everywhere!
We need language for everything!
The scientific method is present in every decision we make!
I have heard these statements since I was in grade 1, and I believe them. However, I wish those that continue uttering these phrases could elaborate more and add examples to make this visible, to help those of us that do not see the connection to see it and make meaning out of this.
In my last holiday, I spent a week in Cambodia, in Siem Reap to be exact. While I enjoyed and knelt before the presence of Angkor Wat, I also had the plenty of time to observe Cambodians and their habits, to appreciate their smiles and kindness, and to reflect. It seems like even on holidays I am learning. Aside from these experiences, my friend and travel companion, Siddharth Mehta, had the chance to watch cooks at RINA RINO prepare a variety of dishes and I joined him in his lesson.
What initially started as an attempt to learn a new cooking technique for him, and a chance to eat again at my favorite restaurant in Siem Reap became a long life learning lesson about the value of skills; how we polish them; how we give them an immediate sense of purpose, and we give back to the community at the same time. As the cooks made those dishes and answered Sid’s questions, I remembered those summer days at the countryside when my family and I visited relatives and I had a lesson from family friends on things that were not taught at school. I recalled how Cupertino, a man who was always fixing something in his house, taught me about the tools, force, levers, etc. Clearly there were many physics lessons every time I visited him; and the learning I got out of them were key as I was out of water and electricity in Qingdao recently (as shared on my post about winter).
In those summers I remember how learning was the result of observation and curiosity, and how the way I paid back for these lessons was the help I gave those individuals that mentored me. I learned how clay “adobes” were made; how to improvise a shower; how to “design” flowerbeds in gardens; how to improvise gadgets on different tractor tools to do many things at the same time; and the science behind mounting a horse. Do I use these skills in my daily life now? No, but they certainly have helped me improvise in many occasions; they have allowed me to develop patterns on things that I can do in the same way; and most importantly, they have helped me stay a curious learner.
Thus, as I observed Siddharth’s learning, I started thinking about all the practice we give students, practice that takes place in the classroom. I started thinking about those worksheets that many students are asked to fill out hence wasting precious opportunities to explore their creative thinking time. I started thinking about how many kinds of apprentices schools could generate if they encouraged students to lend their skills to all those masters that need empowerment and support and will most definitely teach them something in return. I started thinking about how we have diluted the opportunities to take action and just reflect on what can be done or avoid accountability by saying that something is going in on in learners’ heads, but we never try to give them the first hand experience that will help them develop a thirst for application of knowledge.
Many schools around the world are teaching wonderful things to their students, but I wonder how many truly regard their local environment as a playground and as a learning lab. I wonder if schools truly value those golden skills that make their learners unique and try to find ways to make them more meaningful while giving them a chance to give something back to community.
I have been saddened when efforts in many schools are limited to raising money for different causes, which is good, but seems to be the easiest way out. Are these examples of what schools consider the best way to demonstrate what students are learning within their walls? I certainly hope not.
Can schools create translation brigades and talk with government offices to see whether they are interested in getting posters, forms or instructions translated in the languages that students are learning? Could students translate menus of authentic local restaurants that foreigners could enjoy as much as the locals do? How can they volunteer with municipal libraries? What kind of volunteering could they do to support the city’s tourism (if the city receives a significant amount of tourists)? How can they help improve conditions in local markets? What creative systems could be devised to help farmers, fishermen or other people who do not have the means? Isn’t this the real meaning of trying to do something for the community at a decent scale?
Some teachers complain about resources and everything is out there either virtually or physically waiting for us to find it useful. Likewise, it seems that we are taking the information era quite seriously and have become more interested in creating or discovering patterns to do things. Many times do we just create poster information and let it circulate in our networks, instead of presenting it as a stimulus to spark great ideas and inspiration? How many times do we promote imitation instead of authentic creation and innovation?
Evidently, I wish all students were intrinsically motivated, demonstrated initiative, and explored their local context trying to find opportunities where they could lend their skills, learn something new and help the community. Nonetheless, as an educator, I believe every responsible and respectable school’s curriculum should have a system in place to promote apprenticeship and to fundamentally prevent misuse of skills, so that all thinking is channelized into practice that will yield action and real life experience.
I did not ask for a cooking lesson, but I got learning that suits my current mindset and state of mind. I savored the food that Siddharth learned how to cook with a distinctive pleasure, one that highlighted and pointed out at the enduring understanding I was carrying with me.
This has become my homework and a priority. As soon as I am back at school I will talk to out CAS coordinator on how we can optimize what we do, because clearly we must stop underestimating what we think students can bring into the community!
Guest post by Art teacher, Elena Sacks…
As most specialist PYP art teachers know, time is always of the essence. We need to cram in as many skills and techniques into the year as well as tying in with some units of inquiry. I always have felt compelled to feed the children with information as well as modelling techniques.
Lately I have begun to let the students learn what I used to spoon feed them through self discovery. I got to a point in my teaching where I realized that the majority of kids were switching off as I rambled on excitedly, together with numerous visual examples on my smart board. In reality, the kids just wanted to “get on with it”.
After being mentored earlier this year by a fellow teacher (Jocelyn), I soon realized that I did far too much talking. This became evident after Jocelyn filmed me teaching. When I reviewed the footage, my first reaction was “God I talk a lot!” It was then that I decided to reassess how I conducted my lessons. Jocelyn also advised me to read the book “The 5 Minute Teacher”.
After some reassessment, I decided that it was time to let go and hand over more ownership to the students. Initially I found this difficult to do, but very soon I realized that by letting the kids work more out for themselves, and the less I tried to control the lesson, the more engaged the majority of the class was. Yes the less is more theory definitely rang true! Surprisingly there was less petty socialization during the lesson and more discussion about the activity and sharing of ideas.
Last week I took the letting go a step further. I had never let the children go off in different directions to do an art activity outside the art room. This was because I always wanted to make sure I could oversee and have control of the activity. I decided that I wanted to do a photographic project with my Year 6 kids to tie in with their Science inquiry. They would need to go around the school in small groups to photograph. I was very nervous before the first session: What if they mucked around when I was not in sight? What if they didn’t stay on task? I decided to bite the bullet and just see what happened.
To my surprise the kids behaved responsibly, working collaboratively in groups of threes and fours. I merely became an observer, only engaging with them if they required some assistance or advice .
The students spent a good hour experimenting with ways to create ‘forced perspective’ photos. The only provocation I gave them was a 40 second clip and two photographic examples. From there they had to work out how this concept worked and why or how it connected to their Science unit of inquiry.
Here are some of the results:
Yes letting go is hard to do and I still struggle with it at times, but when I do manage to do it, I feel a sense of exhilaration and success for myself and the students!
I’ve been thinking about how to differentiate more for “exceptional students” lately, and today a woman from Tournament of Minds talked to us about a gifted and talented program we will offer at our school. She made me think about whether adding an additional “gifted and talented” program is necessary at an IB school. I’m not convinced yet. I’m curious what others think.
In any educational program, we have a diverse learning student body. I teach at an inclusive PYP school, and we have a range of learners, from those with special needs to exceptional learners. It’s always a challenge to engage everyone, I agree. However, I don’t think adding a program just for gifted and talented is the answer.
Here’s what I know about Tournament of Minds, a program out of Australia, from our workshop this morning and some research. It’s a program that offers the following:
- problem solving with demanding, open-ended challenges
- an opportunity for passionate students to demonstrate their skills in a public way
- a chance to develop skills like enterprise, time management, and the discipline to work as a team
- knowledge and appreciation of self and others
- a chance to encourage experimentation and risk taking
- an ability to expand and reward creative and divergent thinking
- a chance to stimulate a spirit of inquiry and a love of learning
Here’s where I’m confused. The PYP, a program where I’ve worked now for 8 years, seems to be a place where we do all of that in the classroom with all learners (ok, except the competition). The IB Learner Profile, attitudes and skills stress:
- time management
and inquiry…into open-ended problems…self-directed learning. And, it’s for all learners. The message I got this morning was that Tournament of Minds (TOM) would allow those students who are gifted and passionate a chance to shine.
However, aren’t we supposed to allow all learners to shine in our everyday school life?
In a brochure from the IB: What is an IB Education, it says:
Through the interplay of asking, doing and thinking, this constructivist approach leads towards open, democratic classrooms. An IB education empowers young people for a lifetime of learning, independently and in collaboration with others. It prepares a community of learners to engage with global challenges through inquiry, action and reflection.
I’m a passionate PYP educator, and I believe in trying to find challenges that allow students to think critically about problems in the world around them. In my diverse classroom, open-ended problem solving has been the best way to engage all learners. I’m concerned that by offering an after-school program for “gifted” learners, it diminishes what we do in the classroom or allows some an excuse to carry on with a traditional method of teaching because the “gifted” are taken care of after school.
I don’t know, but I’m wondering and inquiring…What do others think? Is the extra “gifted and talented” label and program a thing of the past? Is it something we should already be doing in every classroom in the IB…or in any school for that matter?
Originally posted on https://kdceci.wordpress.com/