Below is the original article I submitted to High Tech Highs Unboxed. This article was "accepted with major revisions". I was provided with the most clear and challenging feedback on any piece of work I have ever received. This leaves me a little cold to be honest. Why haven't I had this before? or since?
I must admit the motivator of an authentic audience was important, but not as great as the professional learning it challenged me to do. I would encourage you to read this "original" which is fairly pants in hindsight and then read the
final version. The article is followed by the summary of the comments on my submission.
I would like to Thank Rob Riordan, Pam Baker and the Unboxed team for th opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Experience weeks
Biannually, we stop using our
timetable and organise "Experience weeks". One of these weeks has
become our "Sustainability week" for our Year 9 (13 year olds), and
it was in this week we decided to apply our learning from our High Tech High
visit.
The purpose of the week was conveyed to the team of teachers who were going
design the individual projects with two training sessions. One dedicated to
what projects are and are not, and one on critique. Of course, I did a project
first and used mine as an example for the others to use. The intentions of the
week were established as
1. To raise awareness of
environmental issues and the positive actions we can take. This was intentionally set as a broad
as possible, to allow staff to explore smaller issues more deeply. This is an
essential experience for UK teachers as our (unenlightened and backward) government
is intent on arbitrary content statements as a "rigorous" curriculum.
So much of our teaching is a race to "cover" vast quantities of
superficial learning. Don't get me started.
2. To create
high quality student projects. Our school as been hosting a
Saturday exhibition day for the last 5 years, always successful, but when scrutinising
the work it does lack the high calibre of student work we witnessed at HTH.
Simply showing the books produced by Jay Vavra, Pam Baker, Jeff Robin et al. is
a great way of asking to up our game. In a word inspirational.
3. To allow staff to teach to
their passions. Another rare U.K. opportunity. Teachers were also asked to team up into cross
curricular teams but this request was an attempt to make the projects more than
a science or humanities project.
4. To allow students to
experience the idea of school as base camp and extended adult learning
relationships. These concepts are taken directly from “Learning Futures” as
they exemplify the real world connections that learning needs and struck a chord with the idea of an
experience week. I love the Ron Berger quote that’s it’s " more useful to
consider schooling not as a delivery system but as an experience”, and I think
that these weeks allow us to escape the delivery mentality.
From
this the team came up with the following projects.
•
Books
written for Primary school children
•
Video
presentation on water conservation
•
Sustainable
spa
•
Swap
shop
•
Pray mat
for Nepal.
•
Guide
book to local bird watching sites.
•
Photography
exhibit St Mary’s light house.
•
Dance
video representing sustainable issues.
•
Recipe
book.
•
Cycle
guide to Cramlington.
•
Computer
game development (based upon Life Below the Line charity).
•
World
record attempt at the world’s biggest bird box.
From
this we were able to offer some choice to our students on the theme or style of
project they were to complete. Due to
our time restrictions we were unable to offer Project Tuning, and this is
something that would have added so much more to the whole of the week. This
will take place next year.
They
also established an impressive list of collaborators and visits to enhance the
projects. These ranged from Professional chefs to a visit to Hendon Sewage
Works and it does get much “real world” than a trip to a sewage works!
And so we were planned. The following is a
brief account of my own experience of running a Sustainability Week Project.
“Wild about Cramlington” Bird
Watching project.
For
my project I wanted to have a project based around bird watching, a childhood
hobby, currently enjoying a resurgence since the arrival of my son Tomas. I
thought it would be a great way of
making clear the importance of looking after your local area and generate a bit
of local pride (again hats off to Jay Vavra for the inspiration) So the “Wild
about Cramlington” project began, I did the project first and dragged Tomas
around a local nature reserve, busying myself recording what I saw and
understanding what my students would have to do. It seemed easy at this stage,
and it wasn’t until I spent an hour making a low quality map of the site that I
began to understand what the project
involved. I decided a “less is more”
approach and allow space to let the project run the learning.
I
plotted a rough calendar for the week, giving it a direction, which began with asking
the group (of 28) if anyone was a keen “Twitcher” (that’s street speak for a
Bird Watcher), I struggled to quell the ensuing dialogue of the rarest bird
they had seen. Actually, I received the stony glare only teenagers can muster,
so I asked if anyone had a pair of binoculars and seven or so said they did. We
were off!
We then looked at some professionally produced
leaflets and guides to local nature sites and picked out what made them
successful. I did include my attempt. We came up with a list that would serve
as the success criteria. Next we watched a 5 minute video made by one of our
Bird watching experts, which gave tips on how to watch birds successfully.
A serendipitous opportunity arose when my
colleague that was running the project with me was unavailable, preventing the
initial planned trip. We were to be confined to barracks. Fortunately we have a
huge campus, with areas that are conducive to nature, including a temporal
pond. So off went 28 nascent
birdwatchers with field guides and shared binoculars in small groups for an
hour and a half to spot birds. What I actually observed was 28 teenagers
parading around the school like a bunch of teenagers parading around a school
campus, it was rather predictable but still frustrating. I galloped around the
campus, suppressing my frustration and asking what had been seen and pointing out
things of interest. The two volunteer experts did likewise.
On reconvening I asked how many types of birds
each group had seen. “Four” one group cried , “ Can anyone beat four?” I
challenged. “Yes, we can?” said one group” “Great” I responded ”How
many?” as they tallied up the tension built , finally responding “Six!” . The
expectation fell. “So how come I saw 19 different birds and two species of
butterfly?”, after a brief silence they correctly identified that I knew what
to look for and where to look, and then a revelation. “Sir, you followed those
tips, didn’t you?” “Er, yes. Yes I did. Can you remember what they were?”
Unsurprisingly, the students named every single one, after all regurgitation is
easy but putting knowledge into practice is the difficult and real world thing.
This is why letting the project lead the learning is so important. I was rather
proud of myself to have allowed it to do so.
For
the final hour of the day, we began writing description of the birds spotted
and of the site. This was in response to their correct identification that they
did not know enough about the wildlife. I was pleased to see a bunch of non
twitchers, thumbing through identification guides and listening to bird calls
on the internet. Again the project was directing the learning. Some students
naturally began drawing the birds, not requested but with Jeff Robin ringing in
my ears “Artists communicate” I let them to continue to engage in the required
knowledge in any way they wanted.
The
next day we left the campus and visited a local nature reserve. The difference
in the students, was palpable. The hushed conversations, the points to trees,
the pauses and scanning of the horizon and most importantly the “What’s that
sir?” questions, all indicated that the students had engaged with the project.
On return each student had at least seen 20 different species of bird. One
student had seen six species of butterfly, and could not believe how fun this was. She’d taken lots of
photographs and was distraught to find that they had not saved correctly. She
determined to return that night to retake some pictures. She did.
Back
in the classroom, whilst writing about our observations we began to acknowledge
that getting the quality of photographs we wanted was perhaps beyond this
project. After a discussion, and several volunteers we decide that drawings would
be the most valid solution.
A whole class critique
It
was at this point that we carried out our only whole class critique on the
species descriptions. This was hard to prove difficult as the students did not
know each other or me, nor did I know them beyond their name, highlighting the
importance of building a community within classes. I persevered armed with
Bergers ’Classroom norms and a single message. “We are going to give one
another feedback on our work and we will redo it until we are happy that it is
of publishable quality.”
So
although on the surface we were coming up with a model of what our species
description should be like, it was really letting the students know that
drafting is part of being successful and we were going to do it. I asked them
to keep all drafts and that I wanted to archive them. It is only in hindsight
that it has become clear that it was this overlong 30 minutes was the turning
point in the project.
On
the third day, the students decided (against my recommendation) to visit a different location to add to the
guide, as “we can’t just have two places to visit”. I could not argue with this
logic, and it was nice to see the responsibility be transferred to my students.
This was further enhanced by a group of students who were designing the layout
of the leaflet who refused to start presenting their ideas, until everyone was present. The sight of one
student running down the corridor to a neighbouring room to collect a group
working on a computer still makes me smile.
A small legacy arrives
It
was also on this afternoon that the defining moment of this project happened.
We had been critiquing each other’s work in small groups mostly hosted by but
not necessarily instigated by me. One student showed me a picture she had drawn
of a Willow Warbler. It was nice picture but did not look much like a willow
warbler. So together we came up with three improvements; the shape of the tail,
its body shape and colouration of its plumage . She returned the next day with
an improved version and the question “What do you think?” It was clear that the
body shape and tail were much better, but the colouration and the head shape
were not helpful to its identification. I gathered two other students and we
critiqued again. Although, I suspected disappointment in being asked to improve
her work again she never showed it. I guess (and hope) that she understood that
we had changed the rules, and in the process her best just got better. I’m sure
she was nervous the next morning, when she approached me with her next draft.
It was great. It looked like a Willow Warbler. I asked if it was okay to show
the class her three drafts (or as they have become known “ The Birds”) which
she shyly accepted and almost hid. I
proudly gathered the class not only to show a beautiful piece of work, but the
progress between them and the most importantly the paradigm shift taking place.
The students were impressed and said so.
The value of extended learning
relationships.
It
became clear that the drafting of work was becoming valued when later another
student approached stating that he had completed
the description for the Goldfinch, and as I inhaled presented the three drafts he had produced. Momentarily
stunned I eventually asked who had critiqued his work. He explained that he had
himself after the first draft using the model the class had worked on and then
he had it checked by two friends. I felt a little redundant, but remembering
the years of experience I have bird watching and that of the experts we helped
ensure that the important identifying features of the Goldfinch were prominent.
The project once again was leading the learning.
The
presence of the experts Phil Allott and Cain Scrimegour was more than just a
critiquing and knowledge base. I genuinely believe that their presence helped
the students realise that their learning matters to the wider community. It
made their learning real. I am indebted to them.
A High Quality Product.
The
final two days were planned to provide time to complete and critique the guide
and then debrief the process. Time was always going to be tight. Over these
days I was particularly pleased with the responsibility shown by the students;
they readily offer their work for critique to small groups, reworked drafts,
switched groups to support large tasks and they offered honest considered
feedback during critiques. However, this was not a perfect group of students
nor was it a perfect project. We required frequent prompting, task setting and
structuring and some timely behaviour
management. For much of the time I acted as a teacher first and project manager
second. We still have much to learn.
Progress
was slow but steady and high quality work emerged periodically. Our original
deadline came and went and the end of week quiz was shelved. Unfortunately, the
debrief became much more independent than I had wanted, but the project needed
time and correctly took precedence. The completed guide was something to be
proud of and I have used it already as an exemplar to the kind of quality my
students should expect to produce. This leaflet and “The Birds” are now
associated with critique, and drafting by all our year 7 and 8 students. They
respect the quality and understand how they can emulate it. This is a very
exciting start for us.
Although
I slightly neglected the debrief I feel it has given me an honest voice from my
students about their experiences. I asked the students to create a poster, in
response to a few simple questions. They typed their answers up neatly and
placed them on to a “habitat” poster attaching them to various organisms, helping
to capture the process we had been through. So I would like to close this article
with my students’ voice almost as a clutch of eggs I am to hatch and nurture.
“Having
to redraft felt good as I always knew what I had to improve in next draft” –
Charlie
“Redo[ing]
work [led to] frustration but [then] realising we had produced better work
[which] expanded upon our knowledge” -Caitlin
“
living in Cramlington, we should take pride in what birds we have on our door
step”- Anon
“living
in a busy area we need to get away and see the wildlife we have in our
community” -Anon
“[Feedback]
helped me by doing drafts to get my product up to a high standard”
“[The
guide] shows others our understanding and widens it.” Phil.
“We
drafted our work [several] times....so we could get a quality product we would
be proud of! -Rebecca, Jack and Sam.
_________________________________________________________________________
Final recommendations for revision of :
- Shorten the article, starting by eliminating or reducing the introductory section. "The article appears to have two quite separate components and tones. The first one and one half pages are an attempt (I think) to provide context, but offer info that comes off as confusing and disjointed from the project itself. There's a bit of a "report" tone to this portion of the article.." - "I found that this could be probably better received if it was about 4 pages long and drop some of the wordiness and sidebar comments." [Rob's suggestions: It's the project narrative that is truly compelling. I would say we should put the reader in the midst of it as soon as possible, with minimal context-setting. Virtually all of the introductory material, and especially the section on project intentions, the list of projects, and the references to HTH and HTH persons could be eliminated without damage, to start. The LF notion of school as base camp could be deleted, or perhaps folded into the project description. I would say shoot for a length of 2,000 words.]
- Dig deeper into critical aspects of the project. "[Select] those 2-3 aspects of the project that yielded the teacher with the greatest insights around PBL (in concept and/or implementation) and then drilling down to provide more detailed and purposeful description of those elements in order to more effectively communicate the teacher's and students' experience with those aspects of the project....Readers don't need to come away with a full description of the project...but they should come away with a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by beginning to implement PBL in a new context." [Rob's note: I'm ambivalent about these responses, as I find the narrative so compelling. Some of your subheads highlight essential elements of the project. Perhaps some additional or revised subheads could enhance that effect. I do think the last part of the quote above—"they should come away with a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by beginning to implement PBL in a new context"—suggests persuasively the proper aim of the piece—I wonder if you agree. If so, one could think about adding a paragraph right before the student quotes, summing up the challenges and joys of the endeavor from the teacher's standpoint.]
- Final Edits/Formatting. "Although the general direction of the article was excellent, the wording of the author made it very difficult to get into a flow when reading. There were awkward turns of phrase and grammatical kludgyness that made me have to go back and reread sections to try and understand the author’s intent."..."There's a sarcastic edge to the writing at times -- I generally like this, but there are a few comments that could alienate readers and are unnecessary for getting the point across." [Rob's note: --It's worth taking a look, though I wouldn't want to remove all of the "edge." See what you think. We may have suggestions as we go to final edits. Please review the GSE style guide (attached) and make any line-edits or formatting changes to align the article with the standards for publication (exceptions: no need for a table of contents and feel free to keep it single spaced).
