Why do so many people have such a strong commitment to certain leaders, political parties, religious groups, etc? It’s the feeling of connectedness and shared beliefs that drives this behaviour. I wrote a post a while back on the reasons why so many new teachers quit in their first few years, and while these reasons can be categorised under poor working conditions or avoidance of cognitive dissonance, at a basic level I believe it comes down to a lack of connectedness and a feeling that the schools and staff simply don’t believe what idealistic new teachers believe. Working for an organisation that does not share your idea of best practices, professionalism, integrity, vision or whatever it is you believe, can lead to a great deal of job dissatisfaction, and so organisational vision and culture is as important to employees as the projected image and message can be to customers.

The point here is that if an organisation is unable to articulate clear beliefs about its purpose and ‘why’ it does what it does, it is unlikely to be able to inspire workforce or customers. This has implications in education beyond whether or not teachers remain teachers. With changes in the education sector being driven by an increasingly competitive international market, innovations in technology, and greater understanding of learning theory, come great challenges, and more than ever before, in this age of information those higher education institutions which fail to add ‘why’ to their ‘how’ and ‘what’ are going to struggle.

I believe this is also linked in some way to the necessity for engagement in learning. There is a lot of focus on what is to be learned and attempts to inspire learning by talking about careers several years down the track, but we are generally not very good at being inspired by the prospect of delayed gratification. As such, in order to optimise learning outcomes the reasons for learning also need to be imbedded in the curriculum and learning activities themselves.

University of New England – Academic Literacy for Education students:

A resource page offering advice on paragraphs, essay writing, critical reflection, referencing, writing conventions, editing and proofreading, oral presentations, effective notetaking, and active reading.

Australian Learning and Teaching Council – Academic Literacy Project:

An investigation into academic literacy for Chinese students, posted on the Victoria University site, includes videos covering key theoretical concepts and interactive examples; proactive principles with student dialogue; technical / practical instruction / interactive feedback; transition and acculturation; and engagement and advertisement.

Murdoch University – Academic Literacies, Keys to your Success:

Information and additional resources for Reading, Writing, Note-taking, and Referencing.

Saint Mary’s University – Academic Literacy Resources:

A resource page covering: Academic Writing, Critical Thinking, Academic Integrity, Designing Assignments, and responding to students/giving feedback.

University of Western Australia – Communication and Research Skills:

Online tutorials to assist students to develop basic communication and research skills in an academic context. Covers: Starting an Assignment, Finding Best Evidence, Writing your Assignment, Delivering your Oral Presentation, and Working in Teams.

University of Southern Queensland – Learning and Teaching Excellence:

A resource for teachers covering various topics including: Integrating Essential Skills, Encouraging Critical Thinking, Hands-On Experience and Higher Thinking, Developing Academic Skills, and Aligning Learning Objectives and Marking Effectively.

The Royal Literary Fund:

A guide for Reading and Writing covering: Understanding Essay Questions; Reading and Researching; Planning and Structure; Drafting and Editing; making an Argument; Quotes and References; Humanities vs Sciences; Seminars, Reports and Presentations; Literature Reviews; and Dissertations.

University of Leeds –  Academic Skills:

A skills page supporting students, researchers, and staff to enhance learning, teaching and research. Covers: Finding and Evaluating Information; Group Work; Listening and Interpersonal Skills; Academic Honesty; Reading, Writing and Presentation Skills; and Time Management.

University of Wollongong – Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention – Academic Literacy Toolbox:

An excellent academic literacy resource covering Expectations, Research, and Academic Reading and Writing over four modules. Contains useful examples, learning activities and links to more resources.

Given the vast amounts of information pouring onto the internet and available on electronic databases, students need to be taught where to find, how to access, how to evaluate, and how to present that information, requiring skills in: research, critical thinking, creativity, written and oral communication, academic honesty, and of course independent learning (study). It helps also to understand certain concepts in psychology such as cognitive dissonance and learning theory, supported by findings in neuroscience. Without these skills, conclusions will be poorly thought out, lack sufficient logic and evidence, or simply be a regurgitation of others’ work and presented in a way which lacks coherence. While it’s true that many students may only be motivated to pass course requirements rather than a desire to gain a deep understanding of their subjects, the ability to build on previous knowledge, to make connections, and to form new ideas has to be an objective of higher education institutions, especially in a competitive market and in challenging economic conditions where institutions are rated on how well they are able to place their students into the workforce.     

The development of academic literacy among students has become a major focus in higher education in an attempt to improve learning outcomes and retain students in an increasingly competitive international market (there clearly needs to be more attention on the development of these skills in secondary schooling). Providing accredited courses in academic literacy is not a practical solution at the tertiary level, and promotion of library services and generic academic literacy workshops, while necessary and useful, are insufficient on their own because those most in need are those who lack the motivation and perhaps discipline to make use of these resources, and also because many students are not able to transfer proficiency to different contexts.

The solution is to imbed academic literacy skills into curriculum, and as with other course objectives, ensure that the design of activities in the curriculum adequately engages students and develops the desired learning outcomes, and that assessments accurately measure these outcomes. The paper linked below gives a brief discussion on the rationale for embedding academic literacy skills into university courses.

Read More

There have been some interesting articles and research findings about the international higher education market in recent years, specifically the experiences of institutions in Australia, the UK and the US with international student enrolments, and the experiences of international students in these institutions.

Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate a 4% decline in international enrolments to March 2012 from the same period last year. The numbers across the board for all levels of education were considerably worse with an 8.5% drop (in contrast to average yearly growth of 6.5% since 2002, representing a decline of almost $4 billion from the peak in 2009). Recent declines in enrolments have been largely blamed on stricter student visa requirements and a strengthening dollar, and visa requirements have since been relaxed again.

This experience is not unique to Australia. The United States has also experienced a decline in international student enrolments (despite a weaker dollar) and has also recently relaxed student visa requirements. The UK has continued strong international student enrolments, however new rules for student visas only came into force in April of this year, and a new British Council report suggests that these changes could have a dramatic and negative impact. This same report also predicts that with relaxed visa barriers, Australia should continue to lead the way in international student recruitment over the coming ten years. I’m always a little sceptical about these hindsight explanations, so it will be interesting to see what happens in international enrolments in these countries over the next year or so as a result of changes to visa rules.

Attracting international students involves more than simply making changes to student visa policies, and retention of these students is also a growing focus within higher education institutions. A report published by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council in 2010: Addressing the ongoing English language growth of international students discusses the findings of The English Language Growth Project – a survey and analysis of around 800 international students over five Australian universities- and makes sixteen recommendations to higher education institutions based on the findings (summarised in the first ten pages).

It’s quite an interesting document, and while the study specifically refers to English language development of international students at universities, the recommendations broadly reflect the new approaches being taken to teaching and learning at the tertiary level, and also has relevance to teaching and learning generally.

Well worth a read:

A few weeks back I wrote about the problem of teacher turnover in education systems around the world, and how the turnover among new teachers makes up a disproportionately large part of that total. Several national surveys in the United States suggest that lack of communication and collaboration among teaching staff; lack of opportunity for professional development; and lack of support from school administrations are the most common reasons given for this high turnover. Much of the media attention seems to focus on a lack of training and support for ‘new’ teachers as the reason for the problem, as though the new teachers themselves are not sufficiently prepared to teach within the edcuation system. I think this is a very unfortunate and backwards way of interpreting the issue, since solutions based on this thinking would have broken teachers adapting to systems and school cultures rather than broken systems and school cultures being fixed because they are posioning education.

In addition to teacher retention, an integrated professional culture within institutions improves learning outcomes for teachers and students alike. In the absence of formal professional development, communication and collaboration among teachers can lead to shared learning, and the identification and resolution of teaching and learning issues. The results of numerous surveys and case studies seem to support this conclusion, as does research which empirically tests and confirms the cause and effect relationship between improved teacher collaboration and improved student achievement. Given the benefits of collaboration for teachers and students alike, why do so many teachers in so many schools continue to work in isolation? Surveys in the US suggest the number is somewhere between 50 and 65% of teachers (although this is likely to be the result of broken school cultures rather simply a matter of teacher choice).

Why does communication and collaboration among teachers lead to improvements in student achievement? I mentioned in a previous post on March 25th that there are certain potential dangers involved in decision making in teams such as ‘group think’ and over-confidence in group-made decisions; however, if these can be avoided the substantial benefits involve improved creativity; job satisfaction; peer review of ideas and practices; combining of skills; delegation of work; learning opportunities; identification of problems; and shared responsibility for resolving issues and reinforcing student learning. The other day I came across an interesting little video on YouTube by Steven Johnson (linked below) entitled “Where Good Ides Come From“. The theme of the video is that ’chance favours the connected mind’, and while it relates to innovation rather than issues in education specifically, you get the idea. Worth a watch:

This ‘gap’ between where education is and where it should be is the application of modern learning theory supported by research in psychology and neuroscience; developments in technology which have given us low cost access to information at our fingertips, no matter where we are; innovations in technology and uses of technology which go beyond simple digitisation of traditional teaching materials to enhance learning; and of course the communication, collaboration and professional development between and among educators, supported by school administrations and policy makers, to ensure the gap gets filled. To see things a little more clearly, it helps to look at how education is, why it is that way, and why it shouldn’t be that way now.  

The use of standardised textbooks and curriculum as a primary teaching instrument became popular in the 19^th Century with the rise of mass education, because knowledge was scarce and it simply wasn’t practical to teach a class without a manual of instruction. Dedicated classrooms were also necessary because there was no other way to teach a large group of learners without fast, reliable, cheap and practical long distance communication; so education was necessarily local. The scientific study of learning also began in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries with attempts to find the best approaches to teaching (primarily focused on behaviourism vs. cognitivism), and given the scarcity of information and the size of classes, teacher-centred approaches prevailed.

Given the above limitations and what we knew about the brain (virtually nothing), the way education developed through the 19^th and 20^th centuries made sense. In the second decade of the 21^st century, when none of these limitations still exist and we know a great deal more about how we learn, does it still make sense to have teachers standing at the front of classrooms, imparting knowledge to passive listeners using expensive textbooks? Knowing what we know about the benefits of communication, collaboration and positive working environments, and how quickly the world changes around us, does it make sense to have school cultures where teaching happens in virtual isolation and without professional development? Knowing what we know about the importance of aligning curriculum and assessment to desired learning outcomes does a focus on standardised testing make any sense?

What should the role of the educator now be? What should curriculum look like? How can technology now be used to enhance learning? How should learning now be assessed? How can we improve collaboration and professional development among educators?

None of these questions are new- there are blogs and articles written every day, all over the world about the changes that need to happen in education. I read stories every day about innovative teachers and progressive schools that are making positive changes, but it’s not widespread yet. Change is happening slowly, but it’s important to keep talking about it, spreading awareness, and encouraging educators to adopt and push for change, because it doesn’t happen on its own. Change doesn’t start at the top; it happens as a result of pressure from the bottom.

Yet, it seems that every week I read about new studies which claim to overturn the conclusions reached by previous studies, and the fact that this happens so frequently is cause for some concern. Errors in research and analysis aren’t the only problems. It has been suggested that research in many fields is increasingly showing signs of the ‘file draw effect’ – allowing the results of studies which fail to support hypotheses to go unpublished. It’s not surprising that negative results might not be considered novel enough to be published by journals; that researchers might not want to flaunt results which do not support their hypotheses; or that vested interests in clinical trials of new medicines might want to hide inconvenient truths. Of course, discovering a new way that something doesn’t work isn’t really a failure from a scientific perspective, but unfortunately science isn’t really the issue here. As an interesting side note: I recently read about an MIT study from 2009 which suggested that brain processes in monkeys only improved after achieving success in a task (as opposed to failing), thus casting doubt on whether monkeys actually learn from mistakes. There’s probably a bit more to it, and I might make this the topic of my next post!

Another issue involves intellectual integrity, the effectiveness of editors and peer reviewers, and overreliance on so-called ‘reliable sources.’ Back in 1996, a physics professor by the name of Alan Sokal submitted an article to an academic journal, which was subsequently published on the basis of his credentials (and perhaps on ideological grounds as well), and later famously revealed by the author to be a hoax (known as the Sokal hoax- a good name for an episode of the Big Bang Theory, I think) as a test of the editing process. This particular journal adopted peer review soon afterwards; however, before and since there have been numerous scandals involving publication of research with fabricated data in highly regarded peer reviewed scientific journals.

The following article by Tom Bartlett in the Chronicle of Higher Education discusses the ‘Reproducibility Project’ which aims to replicate every study published in three selected journals in the field of psychology in 2008. The results should be interesting.

Read More:

So, how can technology be used to improve learning? In my post from April 7 I briefly mentioned game-based learning. I know that many people are uncomfortable with the idea of using computer games in education (it’s not like kids need more computer game time, and many see games as a part of the problem rather than a solution), but consider that to be effective, game environments must be structured around how we learn.

Neuroscientists believe that dopamine, a neurotransmitter which is released in the brain when we are challenged and produces a pleasure response, enhances our cognitive abilities (in the short term) and motivates us continue solving problems, to make progress and to achieve success. Computer games offer ongoing feedback through, for example, the accumulation of points, currency, or items as progress is recognised and success gradually and identifiably achieved by attaining levels and skills which then reinforces the behaviours or responses which were used to achieve that success.

Effective games are interesting and challenging; they force us to make, overcome through self-correction, and learn from mistakes; they keep us engaged; and they are also goal oriented. Players strive to understand the skills they need and what they have to do in order to progress in the game, and ultimately to win. Rarely do we play games passively, because we understand that to succeed and to overcome the challenges we need to actively try. Passive gaming only occurs when it is not challenging enough or when we have given up because it is too hard. Active engagement is a crucial part of the learning process, because our learning is determined by what we do, not by what teachers do, and effective gaming environments create an effective learning experience.

Many games, in particular online multiplayer games, encourage or require online communication, peer collaboration and contribution to multidisciplinary teams in order to be successful in the game. Each member of a team often needs to develop expertise or serve a function which differs from that of the other members so that the full range of necessary skills/knowledge/abilities exist within the team, while at the same time being aware of how these roles work together in order to achieve the team’s goals.

James Paul Gee, in the video presentation below, draws an interesting comparison between game manuals and text books, and how game manuals generally don’t make a great deal of sense and aren’t especially interesting until after we have experienced the game and made the connections. Schools are full of manuals without the games!

Wouldn’t it be great if we could get the resources committed to putting more subject specialists together with talented game designers and software houses in order to create truly engaging software which created real learning experiences?
 
 

On the face of it this seems quite reasonable. The ‘learning styles’ view has become very influential in education because we recognise that people do have different interests, motivations and background knowledge, display different aptitudes for various kinds of thinking and the processing of different kinds of information, and our brain structures also vary according to our experiences and even gender. There are, however, those who claim that there is not only little in the way of evidence to justify implementing learning style assessments in education, but that there is evidence which suggests that differences in learning styles do not actually exist, and that our brains are all wired to learn in the same way.

The debate is particularly important and relevant today given the current shift in education, rapid innovation in technology and its uses, and increasing attention to the apparent characteristics of Generation Z. I personally am sceptical about the idea of learning styles (but then, I’m also sceptical about conclusions reached in controlled experiments on learning behaviour) and tend to believe that, preferences aside, our brains do work in essentially the same way in terms of how we process knowledge, make connections, and learn.

However, while different preferences, interests, motivations, goals, background knowledge, aptitudes, etc., may not amount to different ‘learning styles’, they certainly do amount to different ‘learner types.’ If it’s true that we do have different preferences for the way we learn, then certain types of instruction or different ways information is presented will probably engage our attention and interest more than others- the positive effects of engagement and paying attention on learning are strongly supported by research in neuroscience.

Additionally, understanding learner types is also important in terms of goals and motivations for learning and the way they affect how we study and how we approach our education in general. Do we study for the sake of learning? Do we study to pass our tests? Do we not study at all? While the third category of student can be difficult to deal with, the differences have important implications for educators and the way we constructively align desired learning outcomes, learning activities, and assessments (See my post from March 19: “Teaching Teaching and Understanding Understanding”).

Read More:

In my post from March 30 I mentioned the example of an air traffic control service in the UK refusing to recruit trainees over the age of 35 due to cognitive decline in older workers. The FAA in the US is even stricter, requiring trainees to be no older than 30 with a mandatory retirement age of 56, because apparently the skills necessary for success as a controller diminish with age. The idea that cognitive skills diminish with age arises from observation of work performance and scores in psychometric testing. On the face of it this seems reasonable, but is the decline necessarily a consequence of biological aging? More on this later.

Neuroscience has made some progress in recent years and knowledge of the mechanisms of cognition has accumulated to the point where some reliable conclusions can be made about processes which contribute to improved cognitive function. One thing that can be said is that earlier studies which suggested various medicines, herbs, chemicals, diets, vitamins, antioxidants, etc, enhance cognitive function simply can’t be trusted. Although from more recent studies it seems that certain drugs can enhance short-term cognitive performance in some people in some ways (see the article below). In short, rising dopamine levels in the brain improves performance (whereas rising cortisol has the opposite effect).

However, findings in neuroplasticity (how the brain changes its structure and function in response to input- see also my post from March 14) indicates that paying attention to cognitively demanding activities physically alters the brain and enlarges functional circuits. If true, this has some pretty important implications for learning, such as the importance of paying attention! It also provides a possible explanation for cognitive decline in older workers: as we get older and perhaps progress in the same career, stop professional development, have less time for new hobbies, etc, we become comfortable in life, familiar with daily routines, and essentially stop learning new things.

According to this article, research suggests that we can train cognitive functions, such as memory, reasoning, and processing speed but that the exercise needs to be specific to those areas and does not transfer (just as training your biceps doesn’t do much for your calf muscles). There are however three activities which are believed to be effective generally: exercise, meditation, and…some video games! This last one has me excited not just because I’ve been a video gamer since roller disco was big on Friday nights, but also because game-based learning is starting to show its potential. More on this next time.

Read More:

The post today ties together some of the issues in education addressed by previous posts over the past month and was also inspired by a video on YouTube- “A Vision of Students Today” produced in 2007 by Michael Wesch in collaboration with 200 students at Kansas State University (pretty impressive given the changes which have taken place over the past 5 years). It summarises some of the characteristics of students in the digital age- characteristics developed in response to the realities of the digital environment we exist in- and highlights several issues which are still relevant today.

As we know, learning depends not on what teachers do, but on what students do, hence the necessity for a focus on student-centred teaching and learning. If students learn what they ‘do’, what are they learning in lecture theatres or classrooms? Naturally that depends on what they’re doing in those classrooms, but if the answer is ‘listening passively with little engagement or interaction’, the chances are that many aren’t learning much at all.

The video also highlights the reality that access to information online today is easy and cheap, changing the roles of teachers and the form of course materials. If students have an aversion to large expensive textbooks, fail to see value in lectures, are busy talking or texting on smart phones, sending emails, reading web pages or Facebook profiles, playing computer games, watching TV, etc, it’s not the result of widespread genetic flaws in Generation Z (I don’t think), but a reflection of the reality of the world we’re living in today. The reality is that we’re overwhelmed by information, surrounded by technological gadgets, and heavily influenced by social media, and these growing distractions and demands on our time have created a generation of multitaskers (or at least one which tries to multitask). The point is, education needs to be relevant. Change isn’t necessary because it is desired by students- it’s necessary because educational institutions have to be able to keep up with the world, and if they can’t keep up, they become irrelevant. 

Another worthwhile video with a similar perspective (I caution that the presentation may not be your cup of tea!) is “An Open Letter to Educators” by Dan Brown on YouTube. Check it out.

In the age of Google, Wikipedia, social media and online news where anyone with access can post information on the internet almost as quickly as ideas pop into the mind, the rate of accumulation of freely available information is mindboggling. In recognition of the realities of this digital age, Encyclopaedia Britannica announced just this year that it was going out of print after more than two centuries to focus on online materials. Not so long ago, to get information into the public sphere much of it needed to be written and pass through the editing, publishing and printing process, and while there has always been published material of very questionable value, someone at some point at least saw enough value in it to make the investment. Additionally, librarians and educators were (hopefully) able to evaluate the worth of the published material and limit the exposure of learners to poor content. In contrast, the internet is full of unedited, unreviewed material published at the click of a button for the cost of an internet connection; some of it is good, some bad, and some plagiarised. We need to be cautious, because most of it is also accessed with the click of a button.  

Diversity of opinion and ideas is healthy, but the greater the volume of information and the greater its diversity, the greater the necessity for readers to be information literate. Being able to define the subject of enquiry or understand the question being asked has always been a requirement in research, but to know where to look for good information, to critically evaluate it, and to be able to make appropriate selections and come to objective conclusions without being overwhelmed, is becoming far more challenging. Students often don’t ask for help when it’s needed. Often they don’t even know they need help and we shouldn’t assume that they have the necessary research, critical evaluation and study skills, because most of them don’t. Teachers can’t possibly provide all the information that students need, but they must be able to teach students the skills they need to learn, and guide them in their search for and use of information.

For those who design curriculum to include use of computers, online learning management systems, social media, Google docs, and various other devices and forms of e-learning for teaching and facilitating learning, how often are these technologies used in the course assessments we design? Remember the principles of constructive alignment: making sure that desired learning outcomes are achieved through appropriate activities designed to train the necessary skills, and that these skills are precisely measured by the assessments we design. What are we teaching, learning and assessing? If we’re going to use technology as a tool for learning, should technology be used as a tool in assessing that learning? How we learn is important, but so too is what we learn, and what we learn needs to be rooted in relevance outside the classroom.

We also need to think about whether the technology is actually helping us to learn. Does the use of e-books improve our learning better than paper books? Is the information we read on a computer screen better than that what we read in a paper book? Not if it’s a simple simulation of a book, but it could be better, and it should be better. Technology has the potential to be engaging beyond the mere novelty of the technology and automation itself, and it needs to be, because novelty wears off very quickly and technology has moved beyond simple automation. The content technology provides needs to create a deeper connected emotional response in order to improve learning outcomes. For teachers, a lack of time and training can seriously affect how we use available technology, and access to the technology in classrooms and at home is also still an issue for many.

Technology has fundamentally changed education, and the teaching profession needs to understand its role in the digital age of education and the importance of being technology and information literate. Learners with access to technology no longer need teachers for information, but more than ever they need guidance on how to learn, how to use technology to enhance that learning, and how to critically evaluate the infinite resources at their finger tips.

Anthony Salcito in the video presentation below talks about much of this, as well as the benefits of game based ‘incentivisation’ of learning as opposed to the traditional linear learning environment of ‘content, retention, assessment’. It’s worth a watch.

I wonder though, given poor working environments, the inherent importance of education, and the increasing reliance on standardised tests to indicate real learning, if it is the teachers who should be adapting to the system, or vice versa? What happens to those who remain teachers in the long run? What happens to their enthusiasm for education? Does a tendency for innovation change? Does their tolerance for problems within the system change? Are teachers more or less inclined to engage in professional development over time?  

Today’s topic is not only important to teachers within school cultures and education systems, but something that everyone needs to be aware of: How your environment or situation can change your behaviour. The psychology of the individual is the traditional foundation for understanding why people behave the way they do; however, to understand how people change in given situations, their environments or situations need to be understood (i.e. organisational cultures, peer pressure, etc. ), and so do the systemic factors which create and maintain these environments. 

It is natural for people to dismiss the possibility that external factors can strongly influence behaviour, because to accept it suggests that we are weak minded and easily influenced. It may not be so difficult to accept that others have these failings (or even pretend to have them in order to escape justice), but most of us are probably pretty certain that we know ourselves very well and what we would or wouldn’t do in a given environment or situation.  My own experience as an EFL teacher in Elementary through to Senior High Schools is that teachers do generally tend to lose something over time as they fit in, and the change in student/class behaviours can also be striking.

Adapting to environments or changing in given situations isn’t necessarily a negative process, but, as with the importance of exercising critical evaluation of information and sources, and understanding the principles of double-blind research and cognitive dissonance to avoid biases, it’s also important to understand how easily influenced we can be by external factors if we aren’t introspective and don’t remain alert to these influences.

The presentation by Philip Zimbardo below has been around for a few years and the theories expressed are quite a bit older. The examples shown of changing behaviour within certain environments are also quite extreme but the points are worth keeping in mind.

It’s important to understand that decisions are frequently not made on the basis of a single factor; however a single factor often acts as a catalyst in an already difficult situation. While primary reasons naturally differ with the article you read, who is writing the blog, or the purpose, methodology and analysis used in research, major surveys conducted by the U.S National Center for Education Statistics and the Gates Foundation indicate that working conditions and issues with school administrations are ranked very highly as problem areas by teachers. Interestingly, when teachers speak of the problems they face, these two issues are often treated as part of the same issue.

So, what exactly is it about working conditions that cause so many to leave? In the US, apparently it’s not so much about the money or student behaviour, as the lack of collaboration, lack of support by leadership (high micromanagement by administration / low autonomy), and lack of professional development. If it were a matter of letting a few complaining teachers leave so that harmony can be restored, that would be one thing, but this is clearly not about a few unreasonable complaints by a few unreasonable teachers- there are problems within education systems and within school cultures in different countries that require attention. My personal experiences working in schools in Japan, while perhaps also including a set of different issues, are still similar to those listed above.  

Statistics also indicate that new teachers make up the largest portion in turnover figures with very high percentages leaving the profession within the first five years. Given the importance of staying up-to-date on industry knowledge, and the lack of collaboration and professional development among teachers in schools, this suggests that there is very little in the way of fresh talent and ideas entering the teaching pool, and offers another possible explanation for the slow rate of change in education systems (see post from April 1 on Cognitive Dissonance and reasons from slow change).

Explanations for this exodus of new teachers typically include stress arising from a lack of experience in classroom management, a lack of training, etc. with a hint of ‘they simply aren’t equipped to cope’ sprinkled over it; but many teachers’ blogs often paint a different picture. Many of those new teachers that leave the profession do so because they find something in schools that they simply don’t want to be a part of, and it could be argued that they demonstrate courage and sound judgment in an unwillingness to compromise integrity and become institutionalised. What are the options? Stay and adapt to systems and school cultures which fail to value professionalism, best practices and employees? Stay and attempt to change these systems and maybe go mad? Recognise a poor situation and seek a better life elsewhere?

 In the post from March 13 (Mind the Gap) Jeff Elliot indicates one possible reason: there can be considerable difficulties in bringing change to organisations (and more so for systems) because, he suggests, support for initiatives from 75-95% of an organisation is required to achieve permanent, sustainable change. The problem is that, just as we need to facilitate learning for different learner types, those who are pushing for change need to find ways to get various stakeholder types- policy makers, theorists, innovators, early adopters, late changers, parents, students- supporting it. In institutional/systemic cultures where communication, collaboration and teamwork are frequently absent, and/or when personality types are ignored, change is painfully slow- it drifts rather than being driven.

 Another interesting theory is that of ‘cognitive dissonance’ by Leon Festinger in 1957. This is the discomfort we feel when we realise that there is a discrepancy between what we believe and new information (conflicting ideas). We can react to this new information in different ways such as anger, frustration, disappointment, disbelief, etc, but the basic idea is that people want to eliminate dissonance, and because of a tendency to value evidence which supports or confirms our beliefs, new ideas are frequently not accepted as learning opportunities and have a very hard time being accepted, particularly if beliefs are attacked, introduced by outsiders, or change involves perceived humiliation or a feeling of wasted time and effort.

We come to believe in and love the things we suffer for, such as when receiving insufficient reward, because to do otherwise creates dissonance. How do we deal with cognitive dissonance? We seek confirming evidence to support and enhance our beliefs; we ignore new ideas and pretend they just don’t matter very much; or we simply reject dissonance by automatically rejecting new ideas.

 How does this apply to education? Well, it has everything to do with education at every level, as it does to every other field at every level. Policy makers, theorists, practitioners and students all need to be aware that our knowledge of teaching methodologies, approaches and techniques; curriculum and assessment design; and our understanding of how we learn, are developed over time. The year we graduated from school was likely not a year when knowledge in our fields ceased to expand, and the practices we develop on our own in the course of our experiences, despite our personal observations, are possibly not best practices. We need to learn to eliminate cognitive dissonance through critical and objective evaluation of information and sources, and we need to teach this too.

In recent weeks the idea of a “learning revolution” has popped up several times in my posts here. The idea that 21st Century education is finally leaving 19th Century classrooms and teaching methods behind is gaining momentum, and student-centred collaborative approaches to learning, and making use of technology and social media, supported by research in cognitive psychology and neuroscience, are the themes dominating news and blogs on education these days. One might think that this revolution in education is being led by new thinking, but even the idea that active knowledge construction is the method we use for deep learning as opposed to passive reception of knowledge has been around since at least the 1940s. So, what’s going on? Did the field of education really die over a hundred years ago, or is it the teaching profession that died?

Why have things have been so slow to change? Are policy makers, theorists, institutional cultures or practitioners to blame, or is the whole system just too large and complex to be influenced by the conscious efforts of a few? In any case, the purpose of this blurb is not another discussion on the revolution in learning, but rather a brief comment on the importance of staying current on industry knowledge whatever your field may be, and regardless of what you may have studied five or more years ago. 

For teachers, staying up-to-date is something which is probably more important now than ever before. Five years ago, how many of us had heard of Facebook, YouTube, Google Docs, Twitter, Moodle, Smartphones, or social media for that matter? The 2008 Financial Crisis (still considered by many as an anomaly- see my March 23 post for more on so-called anomalies) is now starting to impact on how we think about economics and financial management. Not only is evidence based learning theory gaining popularity and acceptance, but the tools available to facilitate and encourage learning are expanding and becoming more accessible almost on a daily basis. If you graduated with a degree a mere 5 years ago, the world has changed a lot since then, and if you haven’t looked at recent research or innovations in education in that time, you’re already behind, and so are your students.

The same applies to professional development in any field- the world is still turning and you need to keep up. But it’s not just about knowledge. If you’re in your 40s or older you might find your cognitive abilities are deterioriating a little, or so the research suggests. In 2009, NATs (an air traffic control service in the UK) was found guilty of age discrimination for refusing to recruit trainees over the age of 35 for this very reason. Asssuming this decline is statistically true, the question is whether it is a consequence of biological aging, generation bias within the tests and/or lifestyle changes and career ‘progression’ among older people (in other words, a lack of new learning!). Recent studies in neuroscience suggest the possibility that it could be largely the latter. 

The point? Don’t rest on your laurels. If you’re teaching today what you were teaching five years ago, either the field is dead or you are. Whether you need the professional development or not, learning really is good for your brain.

These might sound like odd questions if you haven’t been paying attention to all the studies and articles in recent years suggesting that people don’t actually multitask at all (they rapidly switch primary attention between tasks) and other studies which suggest that we can split our attention into two ‘spotlights’. Many are suggesting that the attempt to multitask actually has a negative impact on time management, productivity, quality of work, and deep learning.  Why would this be? Well, it’s all about focus.

While we may be able to hold half a dozen things in our working memory at the same time, we can really only pay attention to one thing at a time, and controlling our selective attention to a new learning activities is a key to effective learning. We get the most bang for our buck in terms of expanding brain structure and function when we pay attention to a new cognitively demanding activity. Educators in particular need to pay attention to this issue.

On the flip side, practice at switching our attention rapidly between priorities is important in an environment in which priorities can switch rapidly. Makes sense. The following article presents different sides to the debate over multitasking.

Read More:

Today’s article by Annie Murphy Paul discusses research in Australia which indicates that low-achieving students show “substantial deficits” in their awareness of the cognitive and metacognitive strategies that lead to effective learning. This is very important for educators to understand: it’s not always about intellect or laziness. There are a lot of intelligent kids out there that are being failed by education systems, in many different ways. In my own experience as a high school student, in my early years as a student in higher education, and as an EFL teacher trying to manage classrooms where there are considerable differences in student knowledge and ability, I’ve recognised that a lack of understanding of how we learn and good study skills are critical issues for a lot of students (as they were for me). 

Time management and organisation are key skills that many students don’t have, and after surveying over 100 students from 1st year Junior High to 3rd Year Senior High one year I was disappointed to find that only a handful had ever used any kind of schedule or plan to manage their studies and assignments. Naturally, leaving Monday’s homework or assignment until late Sunday night was the norm and this does not lead to optimal learning outcomes, because the work is often rushed and anxiety is peaking after a week of procrastination. There is a debate (which makes me cringe when I think about it) over whether teachers should give homework to students, but that’s another post…

The following article is well worth a read.

Read More:

Collaboration is generally seen in a positive light, and there is no doubt there are many advantages to working in a collaborative environment; however, it’s essential to understand that there are challenges involved in group processes which can limit or negate the advantages if care isn’t taken. I remember leadership exercises in my senior year of high school which demonstrated the dangers of automatically choosing majority supported answers to problems over those which were perhaps better thought out. I have often had small groups in EFL classrooms brainstorm on topics for discussions from issues in Global Warming to activities for Christmas Parties, and found that group mindsets often form and narrow the variety of ideas. The potential problems are numerous and many are well-known: groups being dominated by strong personalities; a desire for consensus leading to groupthink and poor decisions; settling for the first solution which satisfies everyone (satisficing); or even just poor procedural management in meetings.

I came across an article on the Association for Psychological Science website a couple of weeks ago which discussed the results of a study on collaborative decision making. According to the research, another issue which can arise in teamwork/collaborative decision making (pairs in this case) is the increase in confidence in judgments which can result in dismissal of external input and a reduction in accuracy of conclusions reached.

The lesson? Don’t give up on teamwork- collaboration among teachers and students is an important ingredient in optimizing learning outcomes. Just be aware of the potential problems and work to avoid or mitigate them. Seeking out and valuing diversity of ideas, opinions and perspectives is a big step in the right direction. 

Read More: