Critiques an essential element to the success the students experience at
High Tech High. Critiques are basically a formalised peer and teacher
assessment session, but through their regularity, intensity and genuine sense
of a learning community these turn into something all together more powerful. A
real learning forum, as David Perkins would put it "an opportunity to
learn from the team".
The foundation of these critiques are three simple norms, which are now
proudly on display and referred to in my classroom. I like the term norm as it makes it very easy
for me to say that these things are normal in successful classroom). These are:
1. Hard on content, soft on people- I always exemplify for my students,
for example "When Sean explained about how the light refracts in the eye
he did not use any scientific words. Would become the explanation of the how
the eye refracts light did not use any scientific language". So far, my
students have liked this, giving them confidence to give critical advice to
classmates and friends alike. Self correcting has been evident with students
rephrasing sentences to give feedback. I feel it has really helped them talk
about the content more rather than the presentation.
2. Step up, Step back - Focus on the age old problem that
some students will not offer suggestions and others will dominate. Dylan
William's advice on no hands up rule applies double here! I like the
terminology here makes it a much more student friendly than a rule. This was
expertly done at HTH with students being invited to give their advice ,opinions
and feedback.
3. Feedback should be kind, specific and helpful- requires no further
explanation, although I was amused that the first time I held a critique in
this style not one bit of positive feedback was given. I let my students go and
did not correct this, as they were clearly trying to be helpful and were
battling well trying to be specific. I told them at the end and they thought it
was hilarious, in an embarrassed sort of way. The second time around they made
sure that they had a bit of praise too. I only give this anecdote as a way of
emphasising the need to give feedback on the process of critiquing as well as
the content on show.
At High Tech High the Projects run for a long period of time, which
naturally allows for the undertaking of what can be quite lengthy feedback
sessions. The expert teachers I observed doing critiques were aware that it is
hard work for students and can be monotonous, so they managed this situation
with aplomb with great sensitivity to how students were responding and giving
appropriate breaks and if necessary rescheduling of some group presentations to
enable students to get the best feedback possible. It really mattered to
everyone.
The teachers also had planned for the feedback that they wanted to be
discussed. This tended to be around the content of what was being learned
during the project, as well as the quality of the understanding, making this a
real chance to explore misconceptions. The basic format was that each group of
student in turn would present where their project was at the time, and then the
class would discuss the work being guided by the questions the teacher had
established. These were on display and guided the conversation as opposed to
directing it, so there was plenty of scope for more explorative discussion.
Every group also asked for specific advice about their own project which ranged
from looking for tips and tricks on how to improve the presentation, yes/ no
feedback on whether something was clear and too much more complex request about
the content and context. These led to sophisticated dialogue between students,
but, the art of the teacher was to interject and clarify, prompt and extend at
opportune moments. The teachers role in subject content ( pedagogical content
knowledge mostly) was vital, so that they did not revert to the
"elementisis"(elements first) approach to teaching and learning.
Instead it allows teachers to teach within the context of what the students
need to know within the bounds of their projects. See David Perkins wonderful
book "Making Learning Whole" for more about elementisis.
The ownership of this feedback by the students, facilitated (and
sometimes) given by the teacher was one of the reasons that the quality of the
student projects was so high. Due to the creative nature of (all?) the projects
at HTH, I am reminded of Geoff Petty's Six phase model of the creative
process:-Inspiration, Clarification, Distillation, Incubation, Perspiration and
Evaluation. With these it is easy to see that you could indeed have critiques
around most of these as they would match the different stages of any project.
The least obvious is possibly Incubation, where you are "to leave your
ideas alone", but what better way to do this than spend some time
reflecting on the learning of others, which could lead to a new insight for
your own learning. The notion of incubation challenges the need for
"pace" within a lesson, our brains need time process and organise
information. Project Based Learning does this.
Back at school, without the luxury of large projects, I have taken the
chance during "create a presentation" tasks to utilise Critiques. I
would normally rely on my circulation to provide feedback during these
sessions, thereby taking the responsibility away from my students. I have
therefore built in a mini presentation into these tasks, timed just before the
half way point. These are timed, short (around 2 minutes) and focused not on
the content but where they are in the development of the presentations. They
also allow for discussions on improvement (or learning as you will) in
subsequent presentations. I have also requested that each group has questions
that they would like to ask, although this is something that they have found
difficult so far.
I have supported these by ensuring I have clear learning outcomes, so that they can assess coverage, and then questions about the content so that they can begin to assess understanding. Although this lengthens these activity substantially, I have so far been impressed by the depth of the knowledge that this time(incubation?) has allowed my students to acquire.
A great thing that High Tech High did that I am yet to emulate is having students work on similar yet distinct projects ( although one is in the pipeline!) This allows them to approach the content from different perspective and contexts. So during the Critique the students will "hit" the same information four or five times in different contexts. This would be music to Graham Nuthalls ears. Then factor in again that over a prolonged period of time you would have several critiques it is no wonder that the students at HTH learn so deeply.
Undoubtedly the high stakes nature of the projects at HTH is a huge motivational factor in offering and being willing to receive critical feedback with their peers. Although I was surprised that this did not dominate these discussions, as the content and learning of the content was central to the conversations I bore witness too. This excellent article on the Unboxed journal written by staff and students at HTH explains in more detail.
Thanks for these insights Darren. Keep em coming. I know you're not busy...
ReplyDelete