Production 3: Transforming Education / Engaging the Arguments & Models

Part I

    Among both of these articles, they address different layers within the educational institutions that are responsible for change to occur. In the Thumlert, Owston & Mulhotra (2018) article, they looked at the different levels of action that were important for a holistic school change to occur. These levels include the school/leadership level, the teacher level, and the student level that work interdependently with each other—they are not mutually exclusive (p. 82). I definitely agree that the teachers and administrator’s collaboration and willingness to change the system are extremely important. In class I talked about the positive influence of my Principal and Vice-Principal at the school I had my LTO at, and how they encouraged professional development and collaboration amongst grade teachers. It definitely helped other staff members who were more of a lone-wolf planner to get out of their comfort zones and share their own ideas and hear about others’ ideas for their long-range plans. As a new teacher, I still remember how hard it was implementing my own pedagogical system in the classroom with a Mentor Teacher who was more set in their ways. The only way I could please her was to follow her system and there were barely any opportunities for me to take risks in the classroom. This must be how it feels for staff members to be under command of an administrative team that is resistant to change. It definitely is hard for teachers to go ahead and engage their students with IBL projects and convince other staff members if there is no support from administration. But the last element or level that is mentioned, and I think deserves some explanation is that of the students. The Fullan & Langworthy (2014) article seconds this idea and talks about the importance of student autonomy and especially the importance of sharing that authority with others. Fullan & Langworthy (2014) write, “[collaboration] requires individuals to share responsibility for the ends of their work, to make substantive, negotiated decisions together, and to work interdependently” (p. 26). This, I think, is one of the key factors to changing the system. Teachers and students can work as co-learners, but if students are put in group contexts and are not able to share the planning, designing, and working process with their peers, then this new pedagogical system will fail. This highlights the importance of who exactly is involved in this change—not only administration, teachers, but even the students themselves. There are many times I have been in a classroom where students are unable to cooperate with each other. Either some students are apathetic and contribute almost nothing to the overall group efforts, or some students decide to take complete control over the group efforts and are resistant to compromising with the other group members. I guess this leads me to ask the question, what happens when those at any level, have been exposed to the main educational systems; is it possible for change to occur within one academic school year?

    I remember during our class discussions, one of our colleagues mentioned how at the beginning, the changes were not easy—the process itself was not easy. But now that the district has been pushing schools to follow this direction, he is very proud to be part of this school board for its accomplishments and willingness to shift the pedagogical system to something that thrives on student-teacher-administrative collaboration. So, I guess this question I asked is quite loaded. However, even though it might be hard for even one teacher in a school to shift their pedagogy to one where teachers are no longer seen as experts, but as co-learners with students, where students are able to pursue independent interests, and deep learning can truly happen, then we must be prepared not for ultimate failure, but for some sort of failure to occur along the way. What I mean by this is, there will always be something that doesn’t work out. Do we give up when this happens? Absolutely not. We just need to be resilient, like we always tell our students, and change what did not initially work to something else that might work. Thumlert, Owston & Mulhotra (2018) even addressed this problem when some teachers in the study pointed out that some students did need some sort of modeling, direct instructional intervention, or guidance when they wanted to implement the IBL methods in their classroom, especially in the early stages of the system change (p. 88). Thus, with patience and perseverance, we need to train our students to un-learn the traditional ways of schooling and invite them to be part of the learning and growing.

Part II: What is the relationship between deep learning and inquiry-driven learning in the articles? What are the possible relations between inquiry, learning partnerships and system change?

     What is common between these two articles are their ideas of deep learning and inquiry-driven learning. It is through inquiry-driven learning, particularly with the use of technology, that deep learning can take place. In Thumlert, Owston & Mulhotra (2018), they mention the pedagogical aims of combining the personalized 1:1 technology with inquiry-based learning (IBL), and one of the aims was to support deep learning pedagogies (p. 80). Additionally, it is not just the students who have to be engaged in inquiry, but teachers alike. Teachers must continue to be engaged in professional inquiry and learning in order for these pedagogical innovations to occur (Thumlert, Owston & Mulhotra, 2018, p. 81). It was through inquiry, that persistence, engagement, knowledge building, and the development of 21stcentury skills were evident in student work (Thumlert, Owston & Mulhotra, 2018, p. 83). According to Fullan & Langworthy (2014), deep learning is responsible for the development of student learning, creating and ‘doing’ dispositions, and is “premised on the unique powers of human inquiry, creativity, and purpose” (Executive Summary, p. j). So deep learning can be activated when students are able to explore their own interests and aspirations in learning goals and tasks, are given feedback from teachers and peers to build on their progress and learning, and even to explore digital learning tools and be creative (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. 13). This is the definition of inquiry-driven learning tasks, as students are given the tools and resources to explore real world ideas and personal interests, with the support of the teacher and peers (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007, p. 105).

    There are very skeptical people out there who might say that inquiry driven learning is a sham (see articleKirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). The issue with their claim is that they are confusing Problem-based learning and Inquiry-based learning with Discovery learning, which is unguided (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Consequently, with this type of pedagogy in place, there is no deep learning that occurs. This is actually the opposite of what is meant in the Fullan & Langworthy (2014) and Thumlert, Owston, & Mulhotra (2018) article. Each of these articles address the type of learning partnerships and system change that needs to occur in order for the deep learning to occur. Some things that need to happen is the change in the role of the teacher to be partners in learning with their students, and to really see the value of student knowledge (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. 12). I like to say, “capitalize on student knowledge”, because it really is something that not only helps the teacher, but other students as well! In this new system, teachers need to collaborate with other teachers to continue to add to their teaching repertoire—whether that is finding out about different teaching strategies, learning strategies, or even learning about new digital tools to teach students, so that they can use it in their own learning tasks (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014, p. 13). Moreover, when there was a shift away from the traditional form of schooling and direct instruction, the identities of the teacher and students shifted. This is largely in part because of the impact of inquiry-driven learning in the classroom (Thumlert, Owston & Mulhotra, 2018, p. 88). So, we can see how inquiry-driven learning and deep learning differs from mindless discovery learning because it requires work from multiple levels in education. We see how students are inspired, creative, and engage in real world problems in these articles. They are exercising their critical thinking skills and learning about things that will not just give them a pass in the classroom, but that they can use outside of school and in their future endeavours.

    Hence, if I were to succinctly describe the relationship between deep learning, inquiry-driven learning, learning partnerships and system change, I would say that inquiry-driven learning results in deep learning. In order for inquiry-driven learning to work, learning partnerships need to change, or will change in the process. Once these things are in place, we have a change in the system, where education strays away from traditional practices into new pedagogies.

References

1. Fullan, M. & Langworthy (2014).  A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning. London: Pearson. (Read Chapters 1-4)

2. HMELO-SILVER, C. E., DUNCAN, R. G., & CHINN, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and  Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

3. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work : An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

4. Thumlert, K., Owston, R. & Mulhotra, T. (2018). Transforming school culture through inquiry-driven learning and iPads, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 3 Issue: 2, pp.79-96.