Interesting read this morning to follow my last post – an article from Newsweek titled “the Creativity Crisis“. It begins with the assertion that for the first time, research shows that American creativity is declining. This conclusion has been drawn after analysing the lifetime achievements of a group of 400 children who were a part of a study involving a series of creativity tasks designed by E. Paul Torrance back in the 1950s. The research found that those who came up with more good ideas on Torrance’s tests of creative thinking grew up to be entrepreneurs, inventors, college presidents, authors, doctors, diplomats, and software developers.

The Newsweek article cites a recent IBM poll of 1,500 CEOs identified creativity as the No. 1 “leadership competency” of the future. And yet it is declining (apparently), both in society as a whole, and in our schools in particular. The authors identify two of the possible reasons for the decline…

1. the impact of television and the number of hours kids now spend in front of the TV and playing videogames rather than engaging in creative activities
2. the lack of creativity development in our schools, there’s no concerted effort to nurture the creativity of all children.

While it’s easy to blame the school system for all manner of social failings, this is one that I feel we do need to consider more seriously. In her writing about The Neuroscience of Joyful Education, Judy Willis highlights the importance of novelty in our teaching, stress-free classrooms, and pleasurable associations linked with learning as essential pre-cursors to joyful learning and the development of creativity. She goes on to suggest that when planning for the ideal emotional atmosphere we should be mindful of the following;

• Make it relevant – when stress in the classroom is getting high, it is often because a lesson is overly abstract or seems irrelevant to students.
• Give them a break – students can reduce stress by enjoying hobbies, time with friends, exercise, or music.
• Create positive associations – by avoiding stressful practices like calling on students who have not raised their hands, teachers can dampen the stress association.
• Prioritize information – helping students learn how to prioritize and therefore reduce the amount of information they need to deal with is a valuable stress-buster.
• Allow independent discovery learning – students are more likely to remember and understand what they learn if they find it compelling or have a part in figuring it out for themselves.

Others, including Richard Millwood who has written about ‘delight’ in learning, emphasise similar conditions for learning – minimising stress and allowing for more risk-taking, learning from mistakes, discovery and so forth.

This is unlikely to be the case in classrooms (or our school system as whole) where the  emphasis is on high stakes assessment, fear of failure, and “getting it right”. I’m not saying that we oughtn’t be concerned with measuring achievement – but when that becomes the driver of what we are doing the likely result is that the conditions identified for the development of creativity will be less likely to occur.

Here’s my list of current practices in classrooms that need our urgent attention if we are to see the level of creativity increase again…

• a narrowing emphasis on certain sorts of academic work – literacy, numeracy, sciences etc., at the expense of the arts,
• curriculum design that is linear, mechanistic and focused on conformity and standardization
• the classification of human knowledge into things called ’subjects’ which are then taught in isolation
• the breaking up of the learning day into homogenous chunks of time that are then organised into a timetable to determine when certain subjects are learned
• the existence of ‘homework’ as a concept where separate tasks are assigned to be done ‘at home’ – as distinct from considering the flow of learning that can take place at school and continued at home and vice-versa

I had the privilege of being invited to share some ideas on how ICTs can be used to support public speaking to a gathering of members of the local branch of the National Speakers Association of NZ this evening. It was a pretty daunting task, presenting to a group of people, many of whom make their living from speaking, and all of whom are committed to improving how they speak professionally.

After sharing some thoughts I have about how to use slideshow tools such as powerpoint, keynote and impress to best effect, I used a LiveBinders ‘binder’ to introduce a range of online tools that can be used to support effective presentations, and to help share those presentations with others after you’ve spoken. It was the first time I’ve used LiveBinders in a public speaking situation, and I was very impressed! The binder I used is embedded in this post – and from my presentations tab on this blog. Or you can link to it directly here.

I’ve been reading a report out from The Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership at Walden University titled Educators, Technology and 21st Century Skills: Dispelling Five Myths which was released by  during the International Society for Technology in Education annual conference and exposition (formerly known as NECC) in Denver.

The study involved a survey of more than 1,000 U.S. K–12 teachers, principals and assistant principals, and addresses five myths about technology use in education—particularly by teachers—and educators’ perceptions about the effects of technology use on student learning, behaviors and skills.

The key message of the survey findings is that teachers’ technology habits make a difference in their perceptions of student outcomes – reinforcing a strongly held belief of mine that teacher modelling is essential in terms of developing effective practices with ICT in education. We can’t simply introduce technologies and hope that the students will make good use of it, nor can we expect that programmes based on old transmissive pedagogies are sufficient, where teachers take the role of expert who imparts knowledge and instructs. Teacher use of the technology must be explicitly modelled – it must be a part of their everyday practice and discourse. Teachers have a vital role to play at the intersection of technology and 21st century expertise—modeling their confidence with technology, guiding young minds toward constructive educational purposes, and teaching students the tried and new skills for college and career readiness in a competitive world.

The five ‘myths’ that are explored in the report are:

• Myth 1 – Teachers who are newer to the profession and teachers who have greater access to technology are more likely to use technology frequently for instruction than other teachers.
• Myth 2 – Only high-achieving students benefit from using technology.
• Myth 3 – Given that students today are comfortable with technology, teachers’ use of technology is less important to student learning.
• Myth 4 - Teachers and administrators have shared understandings about classroom technology use and 21st Century skills.
• Myth 5 – Teachers feel well prepared by their initial teacher preparation programs to effectively incorporate technology into classroom instruction and to foster 21st century skills

Key findings of the report include:

• Teachers who use technology frequently report greater benefits to student learning, engagement and skills from technology than teachers who spend less time using technology to support learning.
• Teachers who completed their initial certification or licensure since 2000 do not believe their pre-service programs taught them how to teach 21st century skills or how to effectively incorporate technology into instruction.
• There is little association between a teacher’s years of experience and the frequency of technology use in the classroom.

PDF version of the report can be downloaded here.

The blogosphere and discussion lists have been running hot in recent weeks as people have begun grappling with the implications of Facebook’s sweeping new privacy policies and their controversial new default and permanent settings. The concerns appear to have had some effect, with a recent statement from Facebook’s Public Policy Director that the company will release simple privacy settings in the coming weeks.

The argument is between those (like Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg) who assert that the world has changed, that it’s become more public and less private – and others who believe that privacy is still important. It’s a debate that will no doubt continue for some time yet, but certainly has enormous implications for schools, where student privacy is an everyday concern for a whole variety of reasons.

When it comes to online privacy concerns there are a number of things schools can do from a technology perspective (such as filtering, blocking, monitoring etc.), however, the best approach is to do what they do best and EDUCATE students about the issues involved, and MODEL and TEACH appropriate ways of dealing with this.

This sounds straight forward, but isn’t as easy as it sounds, as it would appear from the evidence in a recent PEW internet report that the worst offenders in terms of managing their online identity are those in the age group that are teaching our young people – not the students themselves. The PEW report is based on the findings of a daily tracking survey on Americans’ use of the Internet, with data from telephone interviews conducted among a sample of 2,253 adults, 18 and older.

Those ages 18-29 are more likely than older adults to say:

• They take steps to limit the amount of personal information available about them online — 44% of young adult internet users say this, compared with 33% of internet users between ages 30-49, 25% of those ages 50-64 and 20% of those age 65 and older.
• They change privacy settings — 71% of social networking users ages 18-29 have changed the privacy settings on their profile to limit what they share with others online. By comparison, just 55% of SNS users ages 50-64 have changed the default settings.
• They delete unwanted comments — 47% social networking users ages 18-29 have deleted comments that others have made on their profile, compared with just 29% of those ages 30-49 and 26% of those ages 50-64.
• They remove their name from photos — 41% of social networking users ages 18-29 say they have removed their name from photos that were tagged to identify them, compared with just 24% of SNS users ages 30-49 and only 18% of those ages 50-64.

Seems we’ve got our work cut out for us if we’re to truly embrace the concept of cyber-citizenship in our schools, as  key competency/disposition for our students when they leave our schools. The PEW report is a useful reminder that it becomes difficult to teach what we don’t know, and that in the case of online privacy, the things we teach should be congruent with the behaviours we practice and model. I think there’s a strong case for a concerted professional development approach here, with support at a strategic and policy level. Problem here is that our policy makers are in that same age category.

The full PEW Internet report is available here (PDF download)

I spent a most enjoyable day in Dunedin on Friday with the teachers staff from Taeiri College and Kaikorai Valley High School on their professional development day. My morning focus was a presentation on CORE’s ten trends – a presentation that I’ve now been asked to repeat in several settings after first giving it for this year at the Learning at School conference in Rotorua. The idea was to set the scene for the day with some ‘big picture’ thinking – and the ten trends are certainly good for that! The feedback after the presentation confirmed my belief about the importance of taking time to consider these bigger picture ideas, and to ensure that our actions for the present are in some way linked to a longer term horizon that we have thought about and set targets and goals to achieve.

Since arriving back from Dunedin, my colleagues at CORE have completed the upload of a series of videos we created to complement our Ten Trends web materials. These short video clips are intended to be used as discussion starters in staff meetings, or ignition points for workshops etc. I hope you’ll find them useful

We often hear about the ‘generation gap’ that occurs between teachers and students when it comes to technology use, but I’m often convinced that what we’re talking about is, in fact, a generation lap. They’re not just ahead of us in the way they use technology, they’ve lapped us and are working at a whole new level.

I thought of this when reading today a recent report from Project Tomorrow titled Creating our Future: Students Speak Up about their Vision for 21st Century Learning Project Tomorrow, (PDF) which outlines compelling evidence that students are using technology to take responsibility for their own learning, often times bypassing traditional educational settings.

The report is based on a  national survey of more than 368,000 K-12 students, parents, teachers and administrators, students who were invited to share their vision for 21st century learning that includes:

• Social-based learning – students want to leverage emerging communications and collaboration tools to create and personalize networks of experts to inform their education process.
• Un-tethered learning – students envision technology-enabled learning experiences that transcend the classroom walls and are not limited by resource constraints, traditional funding streams, geography, community assets or even teacher knowledge or skills.
• Digitally-rich learning – students see the use of relevancy-based digital tools, content and resources as a key to driving learning productivity, not just about engaging students in learning.

I noted that for the first time, the Speak Up survey included pre-service teachers. These students said learning the following would best prepare them to teach today’s students:

• learning how to use technology to differentiate instruction for students (75 percent),
• incorporating digital resources in a lesson (68 percent),
• locating and using electronic teaching aides (67 percent),
• creating and utilizing video or podcasts within a lesson (57 percent) and
• using electronic productivity tools (57 percent).

No surprises here, but the contrast between what these students see as valuable and necessary, and what they actually experience is highlighted in the report:

The number one skill aspiring teachers are being taught in their methods course is how to use word processing, spreadsheet and database tools. But when asked what would best prepare them to teach in a 21st century classroom, the college students suggested better training in current technology.

Now there’s an example of generation lap – how can these young teachers be expected to lead learning in the digital age if their preparation is limited to uses of technology that should be, frankly, assumed. This is a very ‘tool-based’ view of the technology, reminiscent of the last century. We ought to be using technology to facilitate learning environments where students have opportunities to learn collaboratively, with classmates or experts, anytime or anywhere using digitally-rich curriculum.

Of particular interest to me was the way the report differentiated between the responses of school administrators and leaders, and classroom teachers. From the evidence provided it would appear that it is the administrators and leaders who are more optimistic in recognising the value of technologies for learning, as illustrated in the following graph which looks specifically at respondents view about perceived benefits of using mobile devices for instruction:

This graph shows clearly that teachers are less likely to see  benefit than principals and school administrators (of course, one has to be mindful of the significant difference in the numbers surveyed in each group). Still, as another part of the report states, “students value the fact they can use their mobile device to look up information on the Internet, access their online textbook or collaborate with classmates, yet teachers are concerned that students will surf  the Internet, text or play games.”

The significant question this raises is captured in the final challenge at the end of the report:

As we continue our local and national discussions about creating learning environments that will engage students and enhance student achievement, perhaps we should begin to ask: are our schools and districts  ready to accommodate the desires that this next generation of teachers have for truly 21st century, technology­‐enabled and empowered classrooms?

It’s been an interesting few days here in Wellington, first at the DEANZ conference, and today with the VLN group. A common theme in each group was the notion of ‘transformation’ of our school system, and inevitably, the discussion turned to the issue of how we can work to ensure that our teachers are prepared to work in these ‘transformed’ teaching and learning environments.

So it was with interest that I read a review this morning of a new book, titled Creating a New Teaching Profession. Obviously, it was the title that caught my attention – however, the review has caused me to ponder a number of things that have been discussed in the forums I’ve been in this week.

The review begins with…

[the] book stitches together ideas—some of which may be controversial—for building an improved corps of teachers from the time they start their professional training until they retire.

And controversial they appear to be! The authors premise their thinking on the fact that research (including our own research from NZ!) clearly shows that teacher quality is the most important schooling factor influencing student achievement.

This being the case, the authors argue that we ought to systematically “de-select” the least performing teachers from our system, and conversely, begin to reward our higher achieving ones. Tying teachers’ pay to their performance,creating more-specialized teaching jobs, incorporating virtual teaching in schools, and revamping retirement systems are just some of the suggestions considered.

In one place the review quotes:

“Studies document a substantial investment [in professional development] being made across schools, districts, and states, with little evidence of a return,” writes Jennifer King Rice, a professor of education policy and leadership at the University of Maryland College Park. “The crux of the problem seems to be an incentive system that rewards teachers more for seat time than for performance.”

I feel I’d like to defend this sort of statement in our NZ context, where we have clear evidence of the investment in professional development (in particular, the ICT PD programme involving cluster schools) making a substantial difference. However, I realise it’s easy to view this with rose coloured spectacles – that in most of my interactions I only get to see the enthusiasts, the ones who have stepped up and are making a difference. It got me to thinking – is under-performance an issue in our schools? If so, to what extent? And if so, are the carrots and sticks suggested in this book likely to be the best solution? If not, what are the alternatives?

I’ve had the privilege of attending one of Joan Dalton and David Anderson’s Art of Facilitation courses in Nelson over the past week. It was a truly refreshing and rewarding experience – expertly facilitated, with a group of around 30 educators from around New Zealand and Australia.

We began the week by telling our personal stories of ourselves as learners. The strategy is an oldie, but a goodie – and very powerful! In the few short minutes we took to tell our story to other group members (with the help of visual ‘maps’ we’d created – mine is to the left) the group somehow transformed from a collection of individuals to a collective with shared goals, concerns and aspirations for the week.

Highlights of those stories were referred to and reflected on through the week. In addition, other stories were told throughout the week – stories to inform, to illustrate, to explain – even to inspire. These are the moments that I can most vividly recollect from my week. This is not to say that the other things we did and learned together weren’t of any value – quite the opposite. It’s just that it occurred to me at least, that it was the narratives we created together and individually that helped weave the threads of our activity together into a more understandable and applied form.

And I’m not talking about the ‘war stories’ that often get told – often experienced when group discourse degenerates into a ‘my story can beat yours’ sort of scenario. These were stories of authentic growth and development, of the ‘aha’ moments in our lives, of the hurts and joys in our lives, and of the growth we experienced as a result.

All of this got me reflecting on the power of storytelling, and of narrative in what we do as educators, with the following thoughts surfacing about why story telling is so powerful…

• It’s quick, powerful, free, natural, refreshing, energizing, collaborative, persuasive, holistic, entertaining, moving, memorable and authentic. No-one can argue with our personal story.
• Stories help us make sense of our own lives, and of the organizations we work in/for.
• It’s is a powerful tool for change because it draws on the active, living participation of individuals.
• Story telling enables people to get the idea in a flash.
• Through story we can pass on knowledge that comes from experience.
• There’s something here about absence of control and judgement – a purposefully told story is so different from a lecture or any other form of discourse that is ‘intended to instruct’ in which power relationships  inevitably play a part.

I know there are heaps of books and academic papers that have been written on the topic, so I won’t try to be definitive here – these are just my initial reflections on what I experienced to be a very powerful contribution to our week. Perhaps others have ideas they could add to my list…?

The US Department of Education has just recently published a draft National Educational Technology Plan with the theme “A 21st Century Model of Learning Powered by Technology” that  calls for revolutionary transformation rather than evolutionary tinkering. (Thanks to Malcolm for alerting me to it.)

For anyone who has been involved in thinking and reading about the use and impact of technology on education over the past decade there’s not a lot of new thinking in this report – but it is certainly encouraging to see it brought together in a national planning document (albeit draft), and not left relegated to discussions on background forums and blog posts.

At the core of the document is a desire to see a transformation in our education system – and a recognition that technology will be central to this transformation. Again, not a lot that’s new in this thinking. Countries around the world have been investing heavily in ICTs in recent years, believing that this will help transform education. (see the recent news of the world’s largest WiFi network in New South Wales as an example)

The problem is, technology on its own will achieve nothing. It must be used confidently and capably by educators in the context of their teaching and learning programmes – and when it is, then transformational things can really happen. To achieve this there must be a significant emphasis on the professional development of teachers – something I was pleased to read is included in the draft Ed Tech plan from the US, where it states;

“Episodic and ineffective professional development is replaced by professional learning that is collaborative, coherent, and continuous and that blends more effective in-person courses and workshops with the expanded opportunities, immediacy, and convenience enabled by online environments full of resources and opportunities for collaboration. For their part, the colleges of education and other institutions that prepare teachers play an ongoing role in the professional growth of their graduates throughout the entire course of their careers.”

Now that’s something I can agree with – of course, achieving it will be a challenge. It’s always easier to measure the success of an investment programme if it involves purchasing widgits or wires – it’s not as straight forward to measure the effectiveness of PD programmes or their impact on student learning, which is why most policy makers and government resourcing people tend to emphasise investment that can be measured by counting the things that have been purchased.

This was highlighted for me in my recent visit to the UK where I had the opportunity to meet with Bob Harrision at a Building Schools of the Future (BSF) conference in Harrogate. Bob sent me a link to a piece he has written in which he comments on the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ third evaluation of the BSF project and concludes that ICT fares well in BSF review – but not transformation. He quotes the report as saying that, disappointingly, there is little evidence of a perceived relationship between ICT and transformation.

To be honest I’m not surprised. The BSF programme has seen an enormous level of investment in the re-building of UK secondary schools since 2004 – but the levels of investment in buildings, infrastructure and ICT haven’t been matched (proportionately) at all by investment in professional learning – at least, not in the way described in the quote from the US plan above.

Back to the US plan – another part of it that holds appeal for me is the recognition of the potential that technology holds for transforming both how we teach (and learn) and what we teach and learn with (resources etc.). The US plan points to increasing use of online education as a means of addressing the diverse needs of learners:

“Connected teaching enables our education system to provide access to effective teaching and learning resources where they are not otherwise available and provide more options for all learners at all levels. This is accomplished by augmenting the expertise and compe­tencies of specialized and exceptional educators with online learning systems and through on-demand courses and other self-directed learning opportunities. Clearly, more teachers will need to be expert at providing online instruction.”

As someone involved in a project that is about to open the door for teachers and students to engage in online education, I know that this is yet another aspect of the whole ‘using ICT in education’ that none of our currently practising teachers will have been prepared for in their pre-service training, and will most certainly need expert assistance and ongoing opportunities for professional learning to become confident and competent in what they do.

Viva national Ed Tech plans – but we neglect investment in professional learning at our peril!

Forget Hollywood, or Bollywood for that matter, now there is EdTalksWood – featured on the hills above Wellington. Coming up on March 26th at Te Papa is a one-day “EDtalks Symposium – Leading Minds, Creating Futures”. This symposium features sixteen 20 minute presentations focusing on current trends in learning enabled through the smart use of technologies, and the related interface between education and business.

There’s a great list of presenters, thought leaders can ignite imaginations, stimulate fresh approaches, and challenge assumptions. The organisers have assembled a wide-ranging line up of presenters drawing on the university and schooling sector, business entrepreneurs, and telecommunication representatives, who will each provide a powerful idea, challenge or trend.

The day will be divided into four themed sessions, with four presenters and a short plenary for each theme. Each speaker gives a 20 minute presentation, and presenter details are published on the Symposium website.

All presentations will be accessible on the EdTalks website following the symposium.