Photo by Daniel Josef on Unsplash
In the Ted X talk by Jeff Hopkins, founder of the Pacific School for Innovation and Inquiry, he discussed the paradigm shift that he felt was essential to the future of education. I would agree. I would also posit that it is already happening. The new curriculum in BC is leading to the differentiation of learning as both a teacher and a learner. The outcomes are not limiting; in fact they are freeing. The problem is that some educators, in both training and experience, are having issues seeing this new method as valid, as it does not allow for the acknowledgment that we have done our job by checking all the boxes. Any step, no matter how small, is a step forward.
I was told when starting my teaching career, that the best way to do this was to have a list of the prescribed leaning outcomes for each discipline I teach printed out so I can check off when one has been completed, and therefore know that I have worked through all the needed “material”. However, what is the ”material”? Has anyone really learned the material fully or merely assimilated it for a short time and then dumped it? The problem is, the way I was taught to teach, was not preparing me to see the validity of this new, and sometimes messy way of inquiry based practice. Fortunately, I was trained to think and operate in a very dynamic and messy world; restaurants, which allowed me to transfer the adaptability I learned there into my practice as a teacher. But what about the teachers who are 20 years in, and have been told to change the way they do everything? What about the parents who want to see the kids “prepared for university”? A paradigm shift is called a paradigm shift for a reason, because we are fundamentally shifting what education is. We are doing more than merely converting from gas to electric, we are blowing up the idea of transportation as a whole, metaphorically that is.
The system needs a redesign and that is never more evident than in a my computer classroom. Hopkins spoke to sparking the flame, however doing that in a traditional form of teaching in a classroom that holds all the computer disciplines at one time, can be challenging. I started off trying to do the stand and deliver method, everyone doing the same thing, and that did not work for a variety of reasons. The main reason being, variety. I had a diverse group of students in that room, wanting to learn very different aspects of computers and software. For example: some wanted to film videos and edit, others wanted to program, others worked on graphic design, others concentrated on game creation, others developing architectural skills, and the list can go on. Basically, I got sick of looking at bored faces because I was trying to check boxes, but they were checking out. I decided, as a course of shear functionality, that I had to change the way I taught. So 5 years ago I streamed my class.
A stream is a software choice and flow. In grade 8, I introduce the students to most of the options and when they come in grade 9 they, hopefully, have an idea as to what they wanted to focus on. Grade 9 is a year of adventure and trying new things to find that spark. Most students will eventually find where they want to focus on in the future during that year. I have students picking different software every year for an eclectic look at potential technology fields they may wish to pursue. It is messy. It is fluid. It is full of growth and mistakes for both me as a facilitator and them as learners. Moreover, it is working well most of the time. Every day, week, semester, I tweak and play with what is happening to make sure more and more learners are captured in the room. I am still not done expanding my classroom and pedagogy but it has been a great journey.
At the end of the day we are all looking for learning. I love to see the lights turn on in a student’s eye when they “find that spark”. I am glad that the new curriculum for the technology classes allows for the fluidity and flexibility to give the students a chance to find their passion and not just check a box.
Andrew Vogelsang