A Little Bit of Cross Campus Collaboration

Over the last few weeks, I have been privileged to have the opportunity to do some collaborative learning with our local Secondary School - Ormiston Senior College (OSC). One of the teachers there, Mr Chandar K, has been using the Sphero robot in his teaching and had heard that we were using them as well in the primary school. He contacted us and offered to take a small group of our learners and do some activities with them, to teach them how to code the Sphero Robots.

I've had a couple of Spheros (and two Ollies) and have been letting our learners use these all year, but I wanted to learn how I could use these a bit more. We were a bit limited by our small numbers, so the opportunity to use 8-10 of them in another setting was very enticing. We asked the 90 learners in our habitat which were interested and got 18 who were keen to make the once weekly trek through the Junior College to go learn about how to code a robot.

For the past month or so, we've been learning and developing our coding capabilities and I've been getting lots of ideas as to how you can manage a robotics curriculum in a school.

On the teaching side of things, Mr Chandar K started by letting the learners free drive with the sphero. This was the last time he let them do this. We had a couple of races to get them used to how the sphero moves and what it is capable of doing.

From there we did some simple coding - making the Sphero roll for a short amount of time, at a specific speed in a specific direction.

That was the end of week one. When we came back the next week, we tried another challenge: to make the robots go in a square (and then back again). This proved difficult for some learners as they had to change the directions (so we learned a bit about angles), and adjust the speed or time so that the sphero would go the correct distance. Some were able to complete the task AND make the robot retrace its steps.

The third session involved our learners trying to program the sphero around three objects inside a square - so essentially they had to program a triangle. This was also difficult, but many managed to do it.

Our most recent session involved the learners coding the sphero to go in an L Shape on the carpet. We had some difficulties today and discussed concepts like friction (the carpet was pretty bumpy itself, but the little markers used for the shape were slowing the sphero down a bit and knocking it off course) and fractions, ratios & proportions (when trying to adjust the distance the sphero would go). As a learning coach, I am starting to see a lot of the mathematical applications with using a sphero.

As you can also find out in the video, we learned about putting a delay between roll blocks so that the sphero goes in straight lines, instead of curved.

So why was this helpful? Well, just on the surface this was great for my learners because they got to experience these robots and learn in ways that we cannot yet provide (with only my two personal sphero at our school) and I was given a great starting point for what I can do with them and lots of ideas as to where we can take this.  But there are deeper implications from this experience. At Ormiston (and I mean the three schools combined) we have a great opportunity for some great collaboration between all people (leadership, learning coaches and learners) and this was a great example of what could be done. I know Mr Chandar K is also working with the Junior College. This will hopefully provide future opportunities for the adults at the three schools to sit down and figure out what we want to teach when it comes to robotics and to start to share knowledge and resources.

As for next steps in the coding, I'd like to start introducing some looping functions and then eventually if statements. There is a lot that can be explored in this coding and the doors are starting to get a bit wider for me.

If anyone out there has any other innovative ways to use these robots, please share in the comments!

Nature of Learning Conference

A few weekends ago, I was asked by the associate leader of learning at my school, Ormiston, to assist in presenting at the Nature of Learning conference which was being held at the neighbouring Ormiston Junior College. I was more than happy to join in and help out, as well as attend the other sessions.

The biggest learning for me in this process was actually preparing our presentation and our school tour. The group of us that was presenting talked over many of the founding ideas and principles that went into designing how our school works and functions. Particularly of interest was the OECDs 7 Principles of Learning put out in its Innovative Learning Environments Project. Our school tour was based around those seven principles while our other presentation was based around the other three elements of that report:

• Action Learning
• Guided Learning
• Experiential Learning

What was quite interesting is that though I was previously mostly unaware of those 7 principles and three main areas, I found that I have been following the majority of them throughout my teaching career. Of the three main areas, we found that two of those are well developed or on their way to being well developed.

Action Learning fits in extremely well with our iExplore time, during which learners choose driving questions to answer and then work in small groups to answer them. As a habitat and as an individual I have been part of a very interesting journey with this idea over the last couple of years. My first go at it was something of a disaster, where we didn't even finish anything. Last year at a new school, I tried once again and was able to get some good, quality work from my students. This year at Ormiston I have been able to start sparking some projects that go well beyond the research and make a slide variety. We're getting some real, meaningful and deep projects.

Guided learning is basically the typical reading, writing and maths. And again, over the last few years, I have been individually and collectively on a journey to find out the best ways to do this. Am I there? Definitely not, but I feel like at the moment, we're giving the 90 learners in our habitat a variety of choices and opportunities to reach their potential.

The Experiential learning is what we are still working on, though the preparation for this presentation was very helpful in clarifying what that means.  Essentially how we have been running these is like topic, though we have been providing choice. Ideally, we should be giving our learners some sort of provocation and then let the learners explore what they want in that topic. The suggestion given was bubbles. Some learners may choose to do art with bubbles, some may learn about soap and how that works, others might look at light and why the colours are the way they are. Others still may want to look at why bubbles form or why they float. With many topics there could be several directions they could go.

Preparing the tour was also interesting. We created a series of videos or slideshows that could be viewed using QR codes throughout the school. You can find them all here, explaining how we use the 7 principles of learning daily at Ormiston Primary.

As for the presentations, I did find some of them difficult as they were all people talking and talking. Interesting that a conference on the way in which people learn is set up for only one way of learning. I did get some really good ideas and thoughts from some of the presentations. I attended a workshop from a school that has vertical teams, meaning instead of having all the Year 3-4 teachers in a team, they have Year 1-6 teachers. I thought that in an ILE a vertical Habitat would be a pretty interesting idea, with year 1s and 6s all in the same space. It also gives the potential of having the same learning coaches their whole time at a school while also having different peers every year.

Another helpful presentation I attended was from our friends on the other side of town, Hobsonville Point Primary. They discussed how their learners have individual time tables and how they get lots of community involvement in their workshops. This is something that we have not yet explored and is very relevant as we would rather have more small workshops to give better attention to interests than the ones we have at the moment. It's all food for thought and these are ideas that have been thrown into the constant churning of my brain. It was definitely an experience that has helped me think about what I do and why I do it.

We Broke Out!

After famously attending three sessions on Breakout EDU at the Google Summits in Auckland and Wellington (and attending one with a fellow Habitat Learning Coach) we decided to give it a go in our Habitat to get a positive start to term 2 this year.

For those of you who don't yet know what it is, Breakout EDU is a classroom version of escape rooms. Learners are given a task which involves finding clues to open up locks to break into a box. Each game has a story to go with it to make it interesting and often the clues are related to a specific are to help the learners consolidate their knowledge.

Given that we had 90 learners we decided to split the children into 4 groups and run two sessions concurrently and then two more later. We chose to use a game based off of If You Give A Mouse A Cookie, but changed the objective that a mouse had come in and stolen some of my lego, which was locked up in the box.

Though I've played several games before (ISTE 2016 Champion) and even helped out with facilitating one, I had never done so by myself before. So I was very nervous and very worried I might make a mistake. The great thing about Breakout EDU is that they have very detailed setup instructions including a step by step video. Once I sat down with all the materials, it was quite easy. I really enjoyed hiding the clues throughout the habitat.

The actual implementation of the game went alright. We had a number of adults in the room who had never experienced it before and we discovered many issues with the way the clues were set out (they had a particularly hard time figuring out that a pot of pencils was actually a clue. But, as we stepped back and gave them tiny little hints, they did manage to figure out all of the clues and open the locks. As was to be expected, the learners didn't really talk to each other about the clues. One of them had decoded a message as to where something was, but didn't understand the message. She left it and walked away but didn't tell anyone. Later, when some other children were told of the clue, they immediately understood and found the key. It was a good talking point when we had our post-game reflection.

This was a really good chance for our learners to learn some real world problem solving skills. They had to think in ways that they hadn't had to previously. They also had to work together and talk. I think when we do this again, there will be a marked improvement in their communication skills (and the way they look at the clues).

So my next plan is to keep on doing these every now and then - the learners enjoyed them and I enjoyed doing them. Eventually I would like to start making my own games. At the moment they seem a bit complicated, but all I really need is a few hours to sit down and think when my brain isn't worried about other things. Given that we're making some big changes in our habitat at the moment, it's not likely that will come about any time soon, but one never knows... 

PMA Conference

Last Saturday I attended the 25th annual Primary Maths Association conference at the beautiful Waipuna Conference Center. Though I don't recall it being said (that of course, doesn't mean it wasn't said) there was a clear theme running throughout the day: Proportional thinking. Now this doesn't necessarily mean proportions, ratios and percent - but it does refer to multiplicative thinking. This, according to many speakers, is something we need to focus on as many learners are yet unable to think this way.

The keynote speaker, Shelley Dole, spoke of a three-step process of representing mathematical thinking for learners. The first is enactive - acting out the problems. This is probably something that is lacking in my practice at the moment. In the week since, I've tried to bring this back into my problem solving. The second is iconic - using diagrams or manipulatives that represent real life things. For example, this would be using things like counters, place value cubes, etc. I've been doing this to a degree, though including diagrams is something that I will work on adding (pun intended). The last is symbolic - which is using numbers and symbols to represent those mathematical ideas. This is something that we rely on quite a bit, and while necessary, it's important to remember that that doesn't have to be the only thing we do.

To be honest, a few of the big ideas in the sessions were not new to me, but it's always good to get a reminder of these things AND there were some practical things that I can use in my teaching.

One session I attended, called Learning Through Play, had a few ideas of things we as educators could use to make the learning of our learners more interesting. There was a lot of talk about using literacy to connect with mathematical ideas. A lot of this was about using stories to create math investigations. I like this idea, though it was very juniors based (read: Year 2 or under). It did remind me of the wonderful (American) resource of the Math Start books. Despite the obvious issues with the currency books, these are really great. I've brought my set back into school and am planning to share them with my learners shortly.

Another really important tip that was shared in this session was that learners should be encouraged to answer their questions in full sentences  - not just in one-word answers. The facilitator mentioned that this can have wonderful effects across all learning areas.

The last session of the day included a massive amount of practical real world maths problems. The facilitator gave us heaps of example questions using ratios and proportions that are real world problems. What I liked best about this session was that we had time to go around and have a go at solving them (note to any presenters out there: get us doing stuff or at some point, most of us will just tune out).

It was a good day to spark some thinking in me. I've always enjoyed math as a student, though that can be a challenge when it comes to teaching learners who don't share my excitement. I hope to use a good deal of the ideas in the coming weeks!

Down With Rainbow Vomit!

Recently, I read an article online about how much decoration on classroom walls is useful. It has been a long-standing observation that the majority of learners, while they do notice things occasionally on the walls, don't really care too much whether or not they are decorated in what can colourfully be described as rainbow vomit (a term which was not coined by me, but by a former colleague of mine - also, that pun was completely intended).

I wouldn't say that I've been one for a classroom full of white, bare walls. No, I think every learning area does have to feel inviting and warm. But often, I feel like there is a lot of pressure to make things look good, just for the sake of them looking good and bright and shiny. Style over substance, in other words.

As someone who can easily get distracted, the main points in the article are very relevant to me. Too much visual stimulation (or auditory stimulation for that matter) can actually make it difficult for learners (or in my case, adults) to stay focused on the task at hand. The researches actually tested this theory and had two sets of children in two classrooms - one bare and one decorated. Their initial findings were that the children in the bare walls room retained more of the information given during the lesson. Obviously this needs to be replicated on a bigger scale, but it makes sense.

For what it's worth, I've taken a multitude of approaches when it comes to what's on the walls in my classroom (sadly, though, I don't have many pictures of these to share and those that I do have are hidden away in the maze that is my file structures on Google Drive and my external hard drive). I've had the big displays to get children interested. I've tried individual spaces on the wall for learners to display what they've wanted to display (which turned out to be a lot of work for me as many of those spaces were in inaccessible spots or too high). I've put up work in progress.

My personal opinion, based on my patented logical thinking and looking at the situation from many angles is that anything put on the walls has to have a purpose - and that purpose begins and ends with the learners who are in the environment. Everything put up has to be for them. Not for leadership, not for the parents, not for ERO.

I think walls should be always changing, with the learners taking ownership of the majority of things on them. Obviously there needs to be organizational things on them, but that shouldn't take up too much space. The environment should be clean and welcoming. One thing I'd like to add is plants, or other calming things. Leaner made art should be put up (though I would argue that if you have 25 or so copies of almost the exact same thing, it's not really art).

This has come at an interesting time when we're trying to decide collectively as a team what to put up in our Habitat. This has certainly given us something to think about.

In Defence of Play Based Learning

Recently a colleague at work shared this ARTICLE with our whole staff and asked for our thoughts.  In an act of clear click-baiting curiously titled Why I Don't Like Play Based Learning, the article does not actually have anything against Play Based Learning, but rather against the "hijacking" of the term by some educators.

The problem, the author asserts, is that some educators are making their normal (i.e. boring) tasks more fun by adding games to things such as literacy or numeracy tumbles. This is not play based learning. Play based learning is literally a time or chance for learners to play and explore their world. One of the main things I want my learners to realize is that no matter what they do, they are learning something. I told this once to a class of mine and one boy made a smart-alec remark (admittedly, I see that as a positive), but I turned it back on him and said "You've just learned how I react to silly remarks. Next time, you'll probably stop and think before you do." His expression when I said that was priceless.  The point I'm trying to make is that no matter what a human being is doing, they are learning something in the process.

In my opinion this disconnect between actual play based learning and what some educators call play based learning stems from educators wanting to do the "latest thing" but not actually understanding the why behind it or not being willing (or able) to let go of the structure that has been indoctrinated into them. As educators, we need to go deeper and understand why we do what we do - all of it.

I've had some interesting discussions around this idea lately and it has always been something I've thought about as it pertains to my practice. One of the few things I actually remember from my University days is a simple formula (which I may or may not have already shared on this blog):

FUN = ENTERTAINMENT

FUN + REFLECTION = EDUCATION

This is very relevant when it comes to play based learning. If we allow learners to play, that reflection can actually be more powerful than any other direct acts of teaching that we could provide. Yes, they do need some direct acts of teaching, but it is my belief that play can motivate children to want to read. To want to write. To want to learn how to manipulate numbers. Obviously in reality we need to teach these things regardless of desire, but we can use the play to make learners desire.

For our part, I do believe my Oresome School does offer a great assortment of play based learning opportunities for our learners. The pictures throughout this blog show our morning provocations and our loose parts playground.

I think, as educators, we need to make sure that we ask ourselves why we're doing things and then actually make sure that we acting consistently with those reasons.

Science Unleashed: Making Motorized Cars

I'm super far behind on my blogging. I've actually already had the third Science Unleashed lesson, but I've not written about the second.

After the first night, I was very excited to get back to the North Shore (without the wrong turns this time!) and see what Chris had in store for us. When I walked in, there were a variety of some really cool things on the table: motors, cardboard, propellers, battery packs. This was clearly going to be a fun evening.

We were again working in partners and our task was to make a vehicle that moved. We had a certain amount of time to build our first prototype and test it, with very little direction - except for the basic concept of the car and how we could potentially make it. My partner and I quickly discussed what we wanted to make and divided up the tasks. We made our vehicle quickly and when it didn't really go, we looked at the problems - the wheels were a bit sticky and not turning easily, the motor didn't have enough power - and decided how we would modify it.  We made smoother wheels and added a second battery pack (some may say this was cheating, but I'm not among them).

Here's a video of how our test worked out at this point:

Afterwards we had the conference like we had the week before, but instead of just discussion what we could potentially test and change, we came up with a plan of who would investigate what. We ended up looking at whether or not weight made a difference or if more power made a difference.  When we tested these as a group, ours went quicker than everyone else's - most likely because of the extra battery packs.

Again, we had a discussion on how we could improve our vehicles.

What was interesting today was not necessarily what we did, but how our scientific community evolved from week to week. We learned from our mayhem the week before and became more organized in our methods, which led to us being more successful in coming to a consensus in the end. I'm going to give Chris the benefit of the doubt and say that this was his plan - get us to create our own community. I look forward to the last two sessions (spoiler - the next one was pretty good too!).

Hosting a #digitaledchat for #MakerEdNZ

Recently, I was give the opportunity from Stuart Kelly to host a #digitaledchat on #MakerEdNZ. I was very nervous about this proposition, but was also excited about the chance to not only run a major, international chat, but also to learn from others and start the conversation.

It was very difficult to set the questions as I wanted to encourage lots of rich discussion, but I also wanted to make sure that the talk was accessible. I initially made a few too many questions, so that I could whittle them down to the best ones.

In the end, I settled with the following 6 questions. None were earth shattering, but I felt that they would direct the discussion and help bridge the gap between the early adopters and those who were just learning about maker spaces for the first time.

1. What is your experience with makerspaces?
2. How would you define a makerspace?
3. What barriers have you had or do you have in getting a makerspace in your school?
4. What are the benefits or disadvantages to letting learners make or create whatever they want?
5. How much direction do you think should be given in a makerspace?
6. What are you going to do to either add to your makerspace or start one?

I wanted to focus on building the base and getting people motivated to start trying these things, which is one of the main reasons I started #MakerEdNZ

The chat went fairly well, and we had some good discussion. A transcript of the whole thing can be found here.

One of the first things that came out of the discussion was actually what a maker space is. Many schools probably have such a space and do maker activities, but they wouldn't necessarily call it that. Perhaps this is one of the realizations that we need to encourage in NZ schools so that educators can start thinking in terms of building on what they already have, rather than having to start a new thing that they've not heard of before.

We even came up with a new word: Thinkering, which given the mix of thinking and tinkering gives a great description of what learners would do in a makerspace - both expanding their mind and using the materials they have to create something.

Many of the barriers to makerspaces starting up were ones that we have heard before: time, money, space, a dedicated staff member, leadership buy-in. These are all things that need to be addressed, though one of them was seemingly discussed as an easily solvable problem. Maker spaces do not need to be full of expensive equipment. Many schools get by with using completely recyclable things, which are very easy to get within the community. Other barriers will need to be given a bit more time, but another purpose of MakerEdNZ is to help get through these.

Many teachers saw providing maker spaces as a positive way to encourage creativity, problem solving and to provide open ended problems. Some worried about wasted time and wasted resources. I've certainly cringed when I've seen my students spending hours on something, using a whole roll of tape in something that won't likely turn out to be useful, but the process of this does hold some value in my opinion. Thought it is tough to see all that wasted tape. Some other teachers echoed this sentiment during the chat as well.

Most teachers agreed that as little direction as possible would be best, though there is a need for some up front direction so as to keep children safe and to provide them with a starting off point. This has shown to be key for me and my learners and after some initial difficulty with the freedom of choice, they were able to become independent and self-directed quite quickly and easily. It's that getting lost or stuck that promotes real, authentic learning.

The actions that teachers are going to take are varied. Some were going to start using the term maker space, while others were very specific in their ideas going forward. Several wanted to get donations of materials for their spaces and find ways for learners to start making.

All in all it was a great conversation, and one that I hope to help continue. It definitely clarified what a maker space is for some and it got others starting to share with each other - an activity that will be key to growing the movement here in NZ.

I look forward to the next chat that I'll be able to host, whether it takes the same format or it pushes a bit beyond. Either way, this was a valuable experience and an important step forward in the #MakerEdNZ journey.

Exploring Literacy and Coding

A while ago, I participated in a wonderful Twitter chat with #digitaledchat where we discussed what you could do with robots in class, such as Sphero. One of the things that came up was using them to create stories or videos by coding the robots as characters. I liked that idea so much, it got me to thinking quite a bit about how coding and literacy could be combined.

I've tried really hard to make my class a creative one, in which my learners are able to explore different ways of learning that are fun, creative and exciting. I want the children in my charge to wake up in the morning, excited to come to school and do their work (which they won't see as work). I have had many different ways of making stories and being creative (including Stop Motion and Digital Storybooks) so it wasn't a big step to try some new things. Here are three ways in which my learners used coding or computational thinking to create stories:

Choose Your Own Adventure Stories Using Google Forms

Many of us have read these books as children and this idea is definitely not a new one. You can use the "go to page based on answer" feature of multiple choice questions to direct readers to new pages based on their choices. When we first did this, I used Google Drawings to plan out the story (it can get very complicated if you have a lot of choices) but it isn't always necessary. A pair of my learners created this story earlier this year.

There are other ways of making stories like this, including Scratch.

Stories on Scratch

This idea came from CS-First.com where you can find a whole 8 lesson module on coding stories for code clubs, though if anyone has used Scratch Jr, that's basically what that app is for. The idea is simple: code the sprites to speak to each other and interact. As coding knowledge increases, so too does the complexity of the stories. This is definitely an area to explore for reluctant writers who happen to like coding (and I've noticed the majority of my learners are liking coding more and more everyday, some even attempting to code a Choose Your Own Adventure story).

Coding Robots to Tell a Story

This was the big idea from #digitaledchat that I have been waiting a while to try. We only have made one attempt at this, but it went, in my opinion really well. Some interested children joined me for a short brainstorming session. We came up with some characters and starting thinking about what their story was going to be about. Some other learners got interested and joined us at this point and the discussion started taking off. I backed off and let them sort things out. There were varying levels of coding abilities in the group and they were able to support each other. A lot of the story didn't really utilize coding knowledge, but it was a fantastic start. Again though, a little disappointed that these children won't get to try this again with me, but I'll keep on introducing these ideas to children and see how they develop.

The plan with this topic is to continue to explore it further, get children making more and more stories using their coding skills and then to share this in more depth next year (hopefully at GAFE & ISTE). So keep an eye out if you're interested as I think this is an exciting way to develop a plethora of skills amongst learners.

Lego Stop Motion Fun!

For those of you who know me and my classroom, you'll know that I have a massive collection of Lego, including many, many minifigures. My learners this year have, with much collaboration, become very creative with the Lego, building houses, cafes and many other things with incredible detail. A couple of my learners have even gone so far as to make a number of stop motion videos, but in the last week they've taken things to an entirely new level.

When I first introduced Stop Motion to my class, we had been using Stop Motion Animator on chromebooks. I had some webcams that worked (though the majority of the ones I bought did not) and that was going fine. Then we had some issues with the saving, so it became very frustrating to see my learners put a lot of effort into their videos and then be unable to save things. So we tried Monkey Jam on the class desktops. There was an improvement in being able to save an export, but it was still a cumbersome process.

Then we tried the Stop Motion Animator App on the iPads. Brilliant. Great resolution, easy to use, easy to add audio and easy to upload to Youtube. Over the past few days, the big sets have been used to create some really elaborate and creative stories from two of my students. I especially enjoyed the way they used Lego bodies with no heads as clothes. 

For anyone thinking about maker spaces, this is one way I have used my maker space to help develop literacy skills. Have a look at what they've done. My input was solely to provide the Lego and show briefly how to make a stop motion video. I'm really impressed with the direction they took with minimal direction. I think it goes to show that learners (of all ages) need an opportunity to explore. The first Lego creations and stop motion videos we did this year were not very exciting, creative or well done. But given time to try lots of things, they've been able to produce some amazing this. I only wish I could give this group of learners more time to develop these problem solving and collaborative skills.

Passion Project Sharing!

Today, after two attempts at Passion Projects and much reflection, my class had our first real celebration of our learning. And it was amazing! We had invited parents and some other staff members to come in for about an hour to find out what my learners had been doing all term. Last time we shared, we had each group or individual go up and talk to the class. This time, after thinking about it, I decided to try doing a fair of sorts. We had one learner who wanted to go up and present (see the video) and the rest took turns at sharing their work at tables throughout the room.

We had about 10 parents join us today and they were all amazing. They went around to each of the tables, talked to all of the children and asked lots of questions. It was such a positive and inspiring day and though I know I did do things to support my learners, this came almost completely from them. They were super confident and I was so proud of every single one of them. See below for pictures of the day.

How might I do more and better HTML coding?

Why do diet coke and mentos react?

Why do scientists invent so many things that are a waste?

How might I encourage people to like school?

What can we learn about nocturnal animals?

How might we make home-made jewelry?

Binoculars

How can I learn to code a website?

There was a buzz in the air?

How can I make a model of a wolf?

How can we make a house?

Revisiting my Mixed-Ability Reading Journey

I had written a whole long post on this topic last week, and was just waiting for some data to finish it up, but then something tragic happened, and it all got deleted by accident (ctrl+z did not work!).  So I'll try my best to recreate what I had written (and perhaps it will be better).

Two terms ago I changed the way I taught reading. I was souring on the effectiveness of achievement (ability) groupings in everything and this was the last frontier.  I wrote some initial thoughts after one term, but now I have some data to back things up. In those two terms, 19 of my learners participated in the mixed-achievement groups, reading two novels over the two terms. This change started in early May and the latest results have come during early September, so the time frame is approximately 4 months. Over those four months, the average improvement in reading age has been 9.9 months, more than double what would be expected The smallest improvement was 3 months and the largest was 21 months. Though this is not exactly a scientific study, it does show that a) I'm not crazy for doing this and b) even if the reasons for their improvement did not include the way I taught, it's clear that the mixed-achievement groups does not hinder learners from improving and the children are not subjected to who is in the lowest group. I wish I had taken some other data at the beginning of this (asking learners if they enjoy reading, if they think they are good at reading) as that may have been more valuable, but anecdotally, the class tells me they don't want to go back to the old way.

Furthermore, while looking at the reading results, I had a look at my writing results as well, a subject in which I have not had achievement groups all year. On average, compared to their term 1 Asttle results, my learners have improved an average of 3.1 points on the scoring rubric, which translates (roughly) to 1.5 sublevels, which is approximately the amount of progress expected in a whole year. So overall, my students have improved more than what would be expected over that time.

Given the improvements, I have spent some time thinking about why this might be, and I came up with several reasons:

Choice
Though the choice I gave my learners was not very big, I let them choose from books they would enjoy (Roald Dahl) and didn't force any particular books on them (in fact, there was a multiple step process to figure out which books to read, each step involving learner voice). Having children choose what they read puts a lot of the ownership back onto them, they want to read those books, and they are excited to talk about them.

Discussion
A lot of the work was based around discussions and questioning, directed by both myself and my learners. Since all learners came from different backgrounds and experiences, mixing up the groups provided for richer discussion and thought about the books. Children who have never worked together before had a chance to share their ideas with each other. This is always a good thing, getting ideas and ways of thinking shared between learners, and having them support each other in developing their comprehension strategies.

Enjoyment, not Shaming
Most children who are not in the top group do understand what this means. By focusing on enjoyment over achievement (on an arbitrary scale) learners are more engaged and enjoy reading more. When reading is enjoyable, they do it more often. When they do it more often, they get better at it.

SOLO Maps
Most of the work I do with the groups for their novels, revolves around SOLO maps and using them to understand the book a bit better. From the first to the second term, there was a marked increase in confidence of students using the maps, to the point where some didn't even need me to walk them through it. They were able to think about what happened in the book critically and delve deep into the meaning of what the author wrote.

Harder Books
Rather than give learners books that are "at their level," more difficult books (which are chosen by the children) push them to learn more. They are motivated to read the harder books and when they go back to their levelled tests, they seem much easier by comparison, which helps them succeed more easily.

Overall, I'm extremely pleased with how this reading (and the writing) program has gone this year. My learners are clearly more confident with their learning and sharing what they know (though this is not just because of the reading, but it has played a part in it) as well as working as a team. Incidentally, it has been harder to prove an improvement in math results this year as it is not as easily quantified (or at least I haven't yet tried to do so). Has anyone else tried mixed-achievement reading? Has it been successful? Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

My Learners Are Amazing!

Every term, each team at my school has an assembly where the learners come up and share something they've done. Each term, I've been the "lazy teacher" and had my learners come up with what to share, prepare everything and then present, with very little input from me. The first two times have been pretty good, especially considering they've likely not had any guidance in doing something like this before.

This term, after going to CS4PS, I went pretty hard out with teaching coding and computer science. I have some students who have really enjoyed doing coding (through code clubs and some of the lessons I've done in class) and they decided to share some stuff they've done on Scratch. The group chose itself, and was inclusive of all learners who wanted to participate. For few days of their preparation, I did absolutely nothing, except remind them they had a deadline. They worked together, having arguments and discussions. Tears  were cried, but followed by talks to fix the tears (I may have nudged them to have those talks).

We had a practice on Friday morning and afterwards in class, we had a little critique to help them along. We first talked about all the great things they did (and there were a lot!) but then we discussed how we could improve. It was amazing to see how supportive and positive the rest of the class was in helping them along. They realized most of what we said anyways, so they were also being self critical (which, is yet another thing I want my learners to be).

Then this happened in the afternoon:

I'm so proud of them and I didn't even do anything, other than guide them along. This is all their doing. It's been a fun last couple of days in class with this and some other amazing things going on (hopefully I'll be blogging about another group that did another AMAZING thing this week, but we have to finalize some things on Monday).

Science Unleashed, Day 1: Rocket Launching

Last night I went to the first of four Science Unleashed workshops with Chris Clay and Ally Bull. I was quite excited because since I met him at the MindLab I've enjoyed everything that Chris has shared with me PLUS I have a science background and enjoy doing fun sciencey stuff with children.

After getting lost not once, not twice, but three times on my way there, I finally found the room at AUT North Shore and settled in. We had a brief introduction but it was straight into a fun, exploratory, playing activity. We were given rocket powder (not actually rocket powder), and rocket liquid fuel (also, not actually rocket liquid fuel, as well as a variety of other materials to make our rockets. Chris did a "shoddy demonstration" (his words, not mine, and on purpose) to give us some basic idea of what we needed to do, with the simple task of seeing if we could make our rocket go high.

All of the partnerships worked, trying different mixtures of the liquid (there were 3), different shapes for our fuel delivery system, as well as different amounts of liquid and powder. When we first started, the rockets didn't work really well (our first one didn't even explode!). But over time, it was clear that more and more of everyone's rockets were getting higher. It was at this point that Chris stopped us and brought us inside to conference. He had us discuss what we found out. Could we make any claims that were supported by evidence. We wrote our claims down and discussed what had happened. There was some consensus on what was certain (one of the fuels was useless) but there was also some disagreement.

Then we went back outside and had another go at it. This time a few groups spoke with each other and discussed which variables we would test. Angela and I decided on changing the amount of liquid. We found that a little bit of liquid worked better than a lot. Have a look at one of our tests. Unfortunately it shot up so quickly we couldn't see the whole thing. But you can tell that there was a lot of upward force propelling it.

The last step of our investigation was another debrief back in the classroom. We discussed ways in which we could improve our investigation. A few of us thought that it would be better if we decided as a group which variables we would test. Others discussed how we would make our measurements more accurate and what things we should measure (we thought that timing hang time would help determine which rockets when highest).

So what was the point of this? Well, there were a lot. The first one is that science and other fun, hands-on activities can be done on the cheap. Not all schools can afford lots of equipment, and Chris even said early on that having less materials and resources can actually be a good thing as it forces you to be innovative.

The whole process was one that was meant to promote the Nature of Science (NoS). Compared to a 'typical' science lesson, one like what we did pretty much gives opportunities to develop all four strands of NoS. For Understanding About Science, learners are given the chance to make their own explanations and understand how science works. They are clearly learning what Investigating in Science means because they are carrying out their own investigations. The whole time, learners are Communicating with their partners and with each other. The conferencing was a fantastic way of communicating this idea. There are also loads of possibilities to share their learning with others or digitally. Every single one of us was participating in actual science and we were all contributing the the scientific community that we had created amongst ourselves.

Though this is not the first time I've participated in Science PD that was similar to this, I have continued to get loads of ideas. As Chris said, he's not about giving us a recipe for a perfect science lesson. But he did give us some great ideas to provoke scientific thinking and investigating. And that's before you consider the inspiration that this night has provided me. I'm looking forward to next week!

On Stepping Back and Watching

For a lot of my teaching career, I have been told that I must be doing something with the students. That maximizing time with me is what will make the difference for students. A buzzword that some principals and other leaders like to use is "direct acts of teaching." Our days are structured by how many groups we can see, as if this makes all the difference in the world.

But I'm here to ask if perhaps we've got it backwards. I'm not saying just let children be all by themselves the whole day - that has the potential for disaster (though I am somewhat interested as to what would happen if that were the case). I'm talking about pulling back and letting students have a go; letting them have a chance to make their own meaning and work through problems their own way.

A big focus of my teaching the last couple of years has been using the problem solving approach in mathematics. In it, I give my students some problems. We discuss what they might mean beforehand, then I let them have a go. Often I just step back and go help the other learners in the class and let them struggle. I've even gone so far as to ban children from asking me questions during their work time. I will drop in and out of each group, asking them to explain what they're doing (and sometimes even doing those - unplanned - direct acts of teaching, if necessary).

The struggle itself is what helps learners learn and grow. I could tell them what they need to know, but a) I doubt very much they're all listening, b) they all need to know different things, even learners who have achieved to a similar degree, and c) learners can and want to learn anything, so who am I to dictate what they should be learning by completing any given activity. There's even evidence that this gives bigger gains in the long run.

More recently (probably in the last few months), I've started doing this more, in other areas. Passion projects are a great way to do this. I've also stepped back in writing and have allowed my students to complete a writing project of their choice - which can range from writing a book to making a stop motion video. Everything we do, I want my learners to grapple with the ideas themselves, experience failure, and then move forward. We are risking the creation a generation of students who merely want to please someone else by spoon feeding them what they need to know.

In writing, I have also begun getting students to evaluate their own work. It was very successful this week. I had taught a quick mini-lesson on improving our vocabulary in our writing and the students went off and wrote on their own. Afterwards, I had them work with each other to identify the interesting words they had used. I watched the whole thing, but the conversations and debates they had ("Is Palmerston North an interesting word?") were much more valuable than me telling them or giving them a worksheet. I even joked during this time to them: "I'm not doing anything". But one student said to me: "Yes you are." They get it. They know it helps them.

There are definitely some interesting perspectives on this. Oftentimes, as teachers we need to feel like we are doing something, as explained in this article. However, I think we need to realize that we can be extremely effective by putting learners into positions where they will struggle and be able to figure it out for themselves.

I also came across this story a while back about WALTS (learning outcomes, objectives, etc for those not down with the lingo) and how they limit learning. Letting students learn their own way means that we shouldn't be dictating the learning outcomes. We can give them a task, but what they learn can be different from one student to the next. Just some more food for thought.

The Case for MakerEdNZ

Since going to ISTE this year, it has become apparent that there is a gap in New Zealand education, at least from my perspective. That gap is makerspaces. Now, I know some of you will be reading this saying: "What are you going on about? I've got an awesome makerspace in my school! You don't know what you're talking about." And yes, you'd probably be right, I DON'T know what I'm talking about. Yes, there are lots of great and amazing makerspaces in New Zealand. However, when I asked the NZ Teachers (Primary) Facebook group about makerspaces, only 43% of the teachers had even HEARD of them and only 11% had one in their school. So I say to you people who have the makerspaces: "How can you help the rest of us?" (note: I'm actually in the 11%, so the question should be: "How can we help each other?")

Instead of getting worked up about it and saying that either: a) it's not fair, I want some cool stuff, or b) what's the point, someone else will fix it, I've decided to do something about it. And thus: MakerEdNZ was born. What is it, you ask? I'm not entirely sure. It's just an idea right now (ok, well actually, it's more than just an idea - but more on that later). But the idea is that we (the keen makers out there, those with makerspaces, and those who just want to bring them to NZ schools) can work together, share what is working for us and get those makerspaces into every New Zealand school. Ambitious? Check.

How this plays out is anyone's guess right now, but I believe that there is the desire to make this change, and that desire will increase as more and more teachers, schools and BOTs see what can happen in a makerspace and the real, authentic learning it can create.

I am currently in the process of applying to two separate programs to help me along in this journey. After being unsuccessful in my first application to the Google for Education Innovator Academy, I was speaking to an Innovator friend of mine about this very idea and it was suggested that this be the project I use in my application. And that's when things got real. When I started thinking about MakerEdNZ in those terms, I got a little more into it and have started work on a variety of angles of it (sneak peek: there's a website in the works, videos being planned, as well as twitter chats and many other ways of sharing) and have started thinking of it on a grander scale. I've literally just sent my application in for that. I'll know in a week (and so will you) whether or not I'll get the support of the amazing innovators at Google to help realize this vision of mine.

The second application I am working on (though mostly completed) is for the CORE education efellows. This will allow me to undertake some action research which will help me make the case for Makerspaces in New Zealand schools (something that would be amazingly helpful in convincing schools and BOTs to help find the space and resources for makerspaces). That application is due next week.

Whether or not I get into both or neither of these amazing programs, this initiative is going ahead full steam (But if you're reading this at Google or CORE right now, don't think that I don't want your help. I think being supported by both of you would really make this idea fly).  So if you're reading this thinking "I'd love to help, but I don't know how I can" leave a message on this post, follow me on twitter (@michaelteacher, @MakerEdNZ or our hashtag #MakerEdNZ), or get ahold of me in another way. We need knowledge, skills and experience, but more importantly we need people who want to make a change and be a part of something amazing. We'll work on the knowledge, skills and experience together. 

So why do this? What's the point of makerspaces. New Zealand education is fine you say. I have to disagree. Not to be disrespectful, but in my experience, way too many students have become disengaged with their education, right from the beginning. The looks on their faces when they are forced to sit still and listen is painful to me as a teacher (and yes, I know this is not the case everywhere, but it is in a lot of places). The lack of a chance for students to be creative and to make things is scary. Busy work and worksheets reign supreme in some schools and many students are left feeling like school is a prison, waiting excitedly for the end of the day and the weekends. Incidentally, as my students have been given more opportunities to make and create, the "Is it lunch yet?" questions have since been replaced with me trying to kick my students out of the classroom at playtimes. Is this not what we should all aspire to: students who actually want to be in school. 

It is absolutely imperative in 2016 that we listen to the voices of our students. What do they want to learn? What skills do they want to try? We need to provide opportunities for students to learn a variety of skills (or just learn how to learn new skills) and expose them to technologies - old and new - that they wouldn't normally get exposed to. We can do better for our students. Would we want to be a student in our own classrooms?

MakerEdNZ has the practical goal of making makerspaces available to all New Zealand students, but the aspirational goal of making every student wake up in the morning and want to go to school to work on their projects. 

In writing this, I've also come up with a great new slogan for MakerEdNZ:

MakerEdNZ. Making students want to stay in class during play time, since 2016

An Example of Collaboration and Critiquing

A while ago I had planned to write about my class' first attempt at critiquing, but other things piled up and I never got around to it. We have been trying to critique our work though and something happened this week that made me think about how relevant this concept has become to my class (and how embedded some of my students are with the idea).

We have been planning and making a poster to share the learning we have done with circuits this term and last. I had divided up some jobs and given a group of students the task of making the title for the poster.

I sent them off to work watched them work together. My class has had a lot of experience working in partners or small teams and it didn't really surprise me that they I was hearing them discuss ideas for how we would write the word circuit. What did surprise me, however, was that they essentially started prototyping. They came up with their idea, drew a quick sketch and then, THEY STARTED ASKING OTHER PEOPLE for feedback. With no prompting they did this. And they kept doing it for at least five iterations of the drawing (shown below, albeit a bit faint since they used pencil). We've still got a few steps to go, but the process was actually quite interesting to watch. I'm very proud of them for how they did this - and the latest version does look pretty good.