teached / in the ass

Tags

2011, cognitive hierarchy, communication, conformity, curriculum, expertise, giving, infrastructure, management, managerialism, money, perception, play, politics, power, powerlessness, Principal, public service cuts, results-led education, seeing, value-bled education

 

 

 

                                          teached
                                          in the ass

                      whatever happened to that
                                public service
                      premised on creating and giving to
                                the ways to let one see
                      that its management ends by saying
                                we cannot all do
                                what we want?

                      whatever happened to that
                                public service
                      that proclaimed its strength of body through
                                pool of expertise
                      that its management ends by saying
                                we have no money
                                to do it?

                      whatever happened to that
                                public service
                      host and guardian of the humble exchange of idea
                                in every classroom
                      that its management ends by saying it’s not that simple
                                we have to jump
                                through hoops?

                      whatever happened to that
                                public service
                      that grew its own high-windowed
                                infrastructure
                      that its management ends by saying
                                it’s just not
                                what was needed?

                      whatever happened to that
                                public service
                      that plots a child’s cognitive development through
                                each and every curriculum
                      that its management ends by saying
                                it’s all about parents’
                                perception?

                      whatever happened to that
                                public service
                      that took the tumblings of a child’s play to measure
                                their trajectory
                      that its management ends by saying
                                does it improve
                                results?

                      whatever happened to that
                                public service
                      that pivots on the craft and poetry of
                                communication
                      that its management ends by saying
                                I am the Principal
                                I can do what I want?

                                          there is no good rejoinder
                                          to this song
                                          there is just no end
                                          to lost

 

 

 

^{————w}(O)rmholes_________________________________|—–

communication & management wormhole: the MagOO Effect Effect
giving wormhole: plop!
managerialism wormhole: portrait
money wormhole: 1959 –– MANHATTAN –– 2012
play & results-led education wormhole: the Apple
politics wormhole: … anymore
power wormhole: sit
seeing wormhole: gentle

 

Advertisements

Structure & d y n a m i c

Tags

assessment, cognitive hierarchy, evaluation, knowledge, learning objective, lesson planning, medium term planning, teaching craft, understanding

The ‘unpacking’ of the Learning Objective needs to be done by applying a cognitive ‘filter’ to the Learning Objective so that its ‘Knowledge’, ‘Understanding’ and ‘Evaluation’ elements are discerned.   If the topic is understood well by the teacher/subject leader, this analysis will be quick and easy – the progression from easy to difficult, from knowledge to evaluation, from level 3/E to 8/A* is coordinated and parallel.   The lesson almost constructs itself – the decisions to be made will be one of resources/access.

This becomes directed learning: in unpacking a topic according to a cognitive hierarchy and providing a roadmap that shows the route of this unpacking, the way for the pupil is clear – to integrate back through the hierarchy with h/er study.   If the presentation of all topics is done according to the same cognitive development hierarchy, what needs to be done for the pupil will always be clear (indeed for higher ability pupils they should become self-directed in their learning, they will be able to work the template themselves).

Assessment for Learning simply becomes the completion of the experience for the pupil – the measure of how far s/he managed to take it.   Self-assessment, peer- assessment and group-assessment are formative assessments, done when there is a pause after the initial impetus of effort has happened (the first ‘go’/’shot’), a check to orient how far the pupil has got and where s/he needs to go.   The teacher-assessment is summative, corroborating what all have commonly understood about development if they have been using the same cognitive hierarchy.

Assessment for Learning means the integration of the lesson/study/assessment through this common cognitive hierarchy – it is the means through which the topic, the lesson and the pupil’s work can communicate; it is the dialectic between the curriculum and the pupil.

The teacher is axiomatic to this dialectic, not just in constructing the lesson and learning (structure), not just in measuring the learning (assessment), but – vitally – in having the instinctive, adaptive, visceral, intuitive human skill to connect it all together (dynamic).   You might have a Medium Term Plan, Lesson Plans and a method of assessment and these might all be present in the classroom as paper, and they might be ostensibly happening in the classroom, but without the Alchemist turning all of this (iron) into gold, you would have an immovable, unchangeable process-led lesson in which minds were not learning.

In recent years teachers have been disempowered from their own art of teaching.   Assessment for Learning should re-instate the integral-ness (the integrity) of the teacher back into the heart of learning, the catalyst/dynamic/alchemy outside the structure that enables the process to actually happen.   Structure just ‘sits there’ without the dynamic to make it work. Targets will just ‘sit there’ without the dynamic to realise them, ’doesn’t matter how much you ‘work’ the structure, ’doesn’t matter how much you treat the teacher as part of the structure.

^{————w}(O)rmholes_________________________________|—–

evaluation & teaching craft & understanding wormhole: constructalesson
knowledge wormhole: Dr Strange V – all the words of all the times of all the worlds speak

 

the View: from Here to the Learning Objective to the Learning Horizon

Tags

cognitive hierarchy, communication, evaluation, hierarchy of learning, knowledge, learning horizon, learning objective, openness, teaching craft, understanding, windows

 

The Learning Objective …

… has got to be simple – simple-enough through which to deliver so that it can be understood, and simple-enough for the pupil to know how to work it and take the learning of it as far as s/he can.   What ‘it’ is, is the Learning Objective.   The Learning Objective is what it says it is: the objective to be learnt – of the great Sea of All Knowable Things in Existence, the Learning Objective is the particular one selected for this particular lesson.   As such it is what is to be achieved, it is the window through which learning will take place, and therefore it needs to remain just the window.   An open window.

It must not have any cognitive qualifiers …

Cognitive qualifiers (such as ‘know’, ‘understand’ or ‘discuss’, ‘appreciate’, ‘be aware of’) have presumed what the pupil will do with it, they have closed down what could be done with it.   Once something is just ‘known’ there is no point in going on to understanding it, once it is just ‘understood’ there is no point going on to evaluate it.   If the Learning Objective contains the qualifier ‘evaluate’ only, this will automatically put it out of reach of the lower ability pupil (or, worse still, it will seem to empower a pupil to evaluate something without understanding what it is); if it contains the qualifier ‘know’ only, it will ‘ceiling’ the attainment of the higher ability pupil.   The Learning Objective needs to be ‘open’ in the sense that it merely indicates what is to be explored, not how it is to be explored.   Any cognitive qualifier would preclude exploration.   In fact, even the word ‘objective’ feels too preclusive, and should only be used to specify what is to be understood.   Perhaps thereafter ‘Learning Horizon’ should be used for the evaluative part of the lesson – that once the ‘objective’ as been reached all that is left is to see what can be done with it … over to you, pupil, see what you can do with it.

Learning Horizons provide a view …

For a view to be functional it needs perspective – the contrast between here and there.   ‘Here’ is where you are, what you know, what you are; ‘there’ is where it is possible to go, what is possible to know, how it is possible to grow.   The contrast between here and there provides the impact of the view – the better the contrast the more the impact because the experience has shown how much more there is (possible) than just here.   It makes you want to go and obtain it from where you currently are.

Learning Objectives (as have been used) access a view alright, but restrict the impact because you have to pay 20p for a minute’s view (and you usually don’t have the exact money anyway), a Title for the work spotlights a feature of the view but provides no perspective, a Starter to the lesson might just focus on the ground, or it might just look at the horizon, but not both, and certainly not the chasm in between.   But put all three working together you have an inspiring view: the impact of here to there (an open Learning Objective), a destination (the Title) and a desire to get there (starter – stimulus – questioning).

So, you have the ground underneath you, you have spied a pathway to it (or maybe a helpful tourist has showed you a map – yes, we teachers are but fellow helpful travellers!!!), off you go!

 

^{————w}(O)rmholes_________________________________|—–

communication wormhole: fractured –
evaluation & knowledge & teaching craft & understanding wormhole: the Hierarchy of Knowing
openness wormhole: the pocket
windows wormhole: on

 

the Hierarchy of Knowing

Tags

applying, Bloom's taxonomy, cognitive, cognitive hierarchy, concepts, empirical, evaluation, facts, knowledge, learning, levels of attainment, questioning, teaching craft, understanding

So why does learning have to happen in a K>U>E way?   (In a relative universe why cannot it happen E>U>K or U>K>E or K>E>U or X>Y>Z?).   The reason is because learning happens (and can only happen) in an integrative way.

Knowledge: is facts, are discerned, are identified, concern levels 3/4 (KSIII), grades G-D (KSIV), grades E-D (KSV).   If you take the simplest piece of learning it is made up of elemental components – pieces of knowledge, facts, things to be recognised.   The starting point of learning is to recognise those basics, to identify them, to discern them.   To identify or discern them you need to be actively ‘looking’, ‘hearing, ‘smelling’, ‘tasting’ or ‘feeling’ for them – you need to be open and ready to ‘get it’, ready to recognise them.   This recognition is the simplest form of cognition – it is empirical (seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched) and then named.   This is Knowledge (K).

However learning cannot stay at mere recognition otherwise it remains just a functional skill – it has no meaning or purpose.

Understanding I: perceives the function, concerned with how facts are connected, involves level 5 (KSIII), grade C (KSIV), grade C (KSV).   To ‘make sense’ of a fact you need to find how it links with other facts – how they connect, how they work together, how they relate.   When a link has been found, then understanding has been developed (you stand ‘under’ the two, otherwise discreet, facts seeing a link between them that wasn’t perceived before, you have abstracted from the erstwhile discreetness).   With this understanding you can then go on to explain (show) the connection and use or construct the newfound connection…

Understanding II: perceives the contingency of the function, how facts are connected on a more macro level, webbed understanding, systems understanding, involving level 6 (KSIII), grade B (KSIV), grade B (KSV).   This is a higher level cognitive apperception because the link/connection can only be made by this abstraction-from-discreetness which enables perception of structure, process, function in the first place.   You cannot see, hear, smell, taste or touch structure, process, function, you have to cognise it.   To move from factual knowledge to structural understanding you need to abstract from discreet exclusivity.   To abstract from discreet exclusivity you need to think – and here is the work of learning.   You don’t just ‘get it’, you have to ‘work it out’ (and then report how you worked it out in order to have it recognised, assessed).   This is Understanding (U).

Evaluation: involves questioning, developing, operating at level 7+ (KSIII), grade A+ (KSIV), grade A+ (KSV).   Are we finished yet?   No, because you could then question, improve, alternate, innovate, combine, revise, expand, plan, rewrite, extend, pose questions on, synthesize, generalise, propose, theorise, create, integrate, project, invent, rearrange, modify, develop, appraise, conclude, critique, judge, assess, contrast, deduce, weigh, criticise, evaluate those links/connections and find all sorts of ways to advance and exploit that initial abstraction of Understanding.   The connections found between facts are not empirical – they cannot be verifiable simply by looking/seeing etc. again.   They are verifiable through reason, cohesion, concordance, performance etc. etc, which can be challenged and alternated and modified as there is need and context.   As this verification is refined and developed, the application of the idea deepens, in that the initial connection, the initial understanding (‘standing under’), refers to more than the initial referents, it includes alternative referents, it includes related referents, it can even come to include erstwhile un-related referents as the concept deepens.   The concept deepens because of another abstraction: an abstraction which moves from the functional and mechanistic (Understanding) to the considered, reflective, principled, metaphysical.   The concept becomes deeper – expertese and mastery is developed.   The scope of this application is as wide as the sky, the result of this application is a one behind the many.   This is Evaluation (E).

~~~

You cannot have an understanding until you have something to ‘stand under’ – facts.   You cannot evaluate and play with an understanding until you have an initial functional understanding in the first place.   This has significant implications for learning (i.e. you cannot evaluate before you’ve understood, before you have knowledge of; you have to learn K>U>E).   Likewise you have to just recognise Knowledge, you cannot work it out, you cannot conjecture it; you have to work out Understanding, you cannot just see it or receive it (‘get it’); you have to experiment to Evaluate, you cannot just be briefed.   This has significant implications for teaching (i.e. you, as the teacher, have to move from E > broken down to U > broken down to K in order to ‘feed’ it back to pupils through your teaching), (or rather, U >>> breakdown for K (differentiation), and U >>> springboard to E (extension); see ‘constructalesson’, coming to a screen near you … soon; (and the ‘Cone of Knowledge’ which is in pre-production but which will be a blockbuster when it launches!)).

 

^{————w}(O)rmholes_________________________________|—–

evaluation & knowledge & learning wormhole: something simple to offer
teaching craft wormhole: the Lamp