Teachers' minds 'colonised' by formulaic teaching? We need a creative alternative.

A Battlefield for the Minds of our Students


There is a battle being fought for the minds of our future citizens between those who see education as a means to achieve narrow political or economic ends versus those who see education as developing the full potential, or gifts and talents, of all students.

The current government’s desire to introduce reactionary national standards into primary schools has polarized the situation but clarified the issue for teachers.

The politicians view teachers as both the problem and the solution to introducing their National Standards. In contrast the teachers, while appreciating their importance, see the problematic ‘achievement tail’ as the result of difficult home circumstances and wider social issues.

On one side stand the conservatives with their minds firmly fixed on solutions with their genesis in the industrial era; an era of efficiency, control, of measuring a narrow set of targets and standardisation. These conservatives who push this populist point of view are tapping into the insecurity of parents and their need for reassurance in these difficult times.

On the other side but less secure in their vision, stand educators who see the need for a new mindset for a new age; these visionaries see the traditional school structures and culture as part of the problem, unable to develop the full potential of all students.

Ironically the Ministry of Education is seemingly pushing both points of view. The reactionary standards agenda on one hand and, in opposition, the revised New Zealand Curriculum with its vision of ensuring all students leaving school as ‘confident life long learners’ with the competencies in place to thrive in an uncertain and ambiguous world. There is no doubt where the Minister and her Ministry stands – for standards solutions from the past. They can’t have it both ways.

As result of these confusing agendas teachers find themselves in an educational ‘no mans land’ facing both the past and the future, uncertain of which direction to face. The excitement sparked by the revised New Zealand Curriculum has been clouded by the confusion created by the political standards agenda. Schools are being pressurised by the Ministry to follow the government’s stance, placing their personal integrity and professionalism at real risk. Hardly the best position for schools to be in to ensure their students are equipped to face up to the very real challenges the future holds, challenges that will require citizens with confidence and creativity.

From my recent experience in schools most teachers seem trapped in no mans land -and, worse still, many teachers seem unaware of the battle going on. These teachers have been colonised by the formulaic 'best prectice' teaching approach being peddled by contracted literacy and numeracy advisers. It can only get worse when the Minister appoints her squads of literacy and numeracy shock troops backed by ERO.


There is a need need for creativity and imagination; an alternative vision.A vision premised on the importance of the arts and of creativity generally. Such a vision is not new it just need to be followed by schools. The revised New Zealand Curriculum provides such a guideline and foresees students as ‘seekers, users and creators of their own knowledge’. This curriculum, if implemented, provides the means to escape from ‘no mans land’.

To realise such a vision requires the replacement of the current failing ‘machine metaphor’ with a creative ‘living system metaphor.’ A living metaphor would encourage those involved to act and learn, as the very young, or artists or scientists. For teachers who like tidiness and efficiency this creative vision would provide a problem because it is very difficult to measure progress in a continually evolving learning situation.The current drive in New Zealand to gain instant results, through standards, is simplistic and will inevitably encourage a surveillance culture and a risk-averse mentality.

To escape from ‘no mans land’ teachers need to find a way out of the mechanistic status quo and to reach for that unknown future. If we are to realise, what some perceptive futurists call, a Second Renaissance or Age of Creativity we urgently require our students to develop new competencies, allowing them to thrive in uncertain times.

Until the situation is resolved creative teachers find themselves locked in a power struggle for the shape of the future minds of our students. There is plenty of ingenuity or creativity to call on but far too much teacher energy is being wasted by those in authority (including principals) who want to keep things exactly as the way they are.

Positive learning attitudes come from students completing work of personal excellence in the arts and the sciences – or indeed in any area of purposeful endeavor. When students are engrossed in such activities they often lose any sense of time and this is the power of engagement, of fully living. One has to wonder why, when and where, the emotional intensity and curiosity to learn of the very young is lost.

Teachers who have succeeded in developing such powerful learners have encouraged their students to slow the pace of their work, to do fewer things well (in depth) and in the process have helped students savour and appreciate each learning experience for its own sake. When such a level of involvement is achieved the work and the worker become as one, lost in satisfaction of real learning.

There are many educators who can lead us out of ‘no mans land’ we are in. Many names come to mind: Elliot Eisner, Sir Ken Robinson, Guy Claxton, Maxine Greene, John Dewey, Howard Gardner, Art Costa, Linda Darling-Hammond, William Glasser, Daniel Pink and Carol Dweck are names that come to mind.

In New Zealand many teachers still cling tenaciously to a holistic teaching model that developed in the 60s and 70s. This approach was led by Dr Beeby, the then Director of Education, and spread by the Art Advisers of the day. Along with creative teachers and schools, past and present, these ideas provide a true alternative to the current highly rationalised and standardised approach that schools currently suffer under. A return to a creative and personalised education is the agenda I enthusiastically support along with people like Kelvin Smythe, Mac Stevenson and Perry Rush and his friends. And lots of others I hope.

We are are asking teachers to makes choices and judgments about their schools' future rather than meekly complying, or ‘going along to get along’ with Ministy requirements. Who wants to live in perpetual ‘no mans land’?

Finally we will have no choice. As Sir Ken Robinson reminds us, ‘changes are sweeping the world that have no historical precedents…no other period in human history could match the present one in the sheer scale, speed and global complexity the changes and changes we face’.

It will not be an easy journey and when the seas seem far too treacherous and the stars too distant to face we should remember Robert Browning’s observation that a “man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a heaven for”’


Up until now the current structures of education have all but destroyed this capacity to imagine by attempts to standardise and measure learning. Terrance Deal, the business philosopher, has written poetically that, ‘teachers need, above all, to dream and dance and to impart their joy of learning to young people. Unless they do schools will never get better'.

We need to take Sir Ken Robinson’s advice and connect with our student’s talents and passions and develop ‘a new appreciation of the importance of nurturing human talent. Robinson visualises future schools where every person is inspired to grow creatively.

Read more »

Posted in: Big Picture,change,Creative Schools,Leadership,Personalized Learning,Rants and Raves,teaching and learning

The source of school failure

From the Sydney Morning Herald Today










One in five Melbourne four-year-olds have difficulty using or understanding language, a new study has found, putting them at risk of long-term learning difficulties.

The study of 1900 children, published today in the journal Pediatrics, found that social disadvantage played a major role in the language outcomes of four-year-olds - despite having little effect at age two.

Lead researcher Professor Sheena Reilly said her team found large variation in language at two, with some children not yet speaking and others saying hundreds of words.The average vocabulary was 280 words, but one child in the study was using more than 600 words.

She said the different outcomes at two were largely explained by genetics - with girls doing better than boys, and those with a family history of speech or reading problems more likely to have problems.

'When we looked at things like socio-economic status, mothers' education and vocabulary, they didn't seem to explain what was happening in those young kids,'' she said.

'When we got to four, biology was still really important but social disadvantage suddenly became really important as well. So these two things balanced together are obviously explaining much of the outcomes at four.'

Professor Reilly, of the Murdoch Children's Research Institute and Melbourne University, said it was possible that disadvantage had a cumulative effect on children's language outcomes over time.

'So it was always there, but you really start to see this diverging gap between the kids who are and are not disadvantaged as they get older, and the richness of language becomes really important,' she said. 'If you're not exposed to [rich language], you're really missing out.'

Professor Reilly said some children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and whose genetics also predisposed them to language difficulties, suffered a 'double whammy'.

For four-year-olds who still have difficulties, Professor Reilly said, the study suggested that enriching language in the homes of disadvantaged children could help improve outcomes.

'In some children it might be as simple as talking to them a bit more and turning off the TV, reading books, or playing interactive games that encourage the child to use language and give them an opportunity to listen,' she said.

'Language skills are foundation skills and if they are starting school … not as prepared as the rest of the children, they're not going to be able to take off. Our fear is that this gap will get even bigger.'


Seems like common sense to me.

What all children need are rich sensory experiences in the company of caring adults. 'Before the word comes the experience'.

We need to bring back those neglected language experience programmes. We need to help chidren explore their immediate enviroment and express what they see. We also need to value their own experiences as the basis of early reading and writing.

Such ideas would be a better solution than the false promise of jolly phonics!

And, if we could develop this richness of experience from an early age, we wouldn't need the reactionary populist simplistic standards so loved by politicians and conservative parents.

Read more »

Posted in: Big Picture,national standards,teaching and learning

Standardisation or creativity; McDonalds or Weta Workshops?

Anybody who spends time in a classroom soon appreciates that children do not arrive in standardised packages. They have similarities and differences and, as they grow, diversity should be part of the process.That is unless we want them all to be the same. Weta workshops employ a wide range of individuals many of whom may well have not done well in academic learning.Workers at McDonalds, in contrast, are trained in clone like precision. Lucky for McDonalds there are no below average potatoes to worry about.

Canadian educationalist contributed the following to an Education Today Magazine. If time visit his website

The term “standards” is particularly topical in New Zealand and thrown around very loosely everywhere else especially by the right-wing press as some panacea for everything it perceives is wrong with schools and teachers.

On the surface there is nothing wrong with articulating expectations for students.

There is a substantial research base for suggesting that effective teachers hold high expectations for all learners. Indeed one could argue to not have high expectations for all learners is inhumane.

But as anyone who has spent five minutes in a classroom will know, the parents keep sending the ‘wrong’ kids. They don’t come to us in nice little homogeneous packages ready and keen to learn whatever it is we have to offer and for whom common immutable standards are appropriate or even possible. Children differ in every way we humans can differ and yet politicians and some academics expect common outcomes.

I’m surprised that the New Zealand government with its nations long history of democratic education, its attention to minority children, and its very enlightened and progressive 2007 curriculum is prepared to risk all this in the mistaken belief that defining standards will magically eliminate underachievement in its schools.

Without rehashing the for or against arguments, the very vagueness and spin that people put on the term standards is what is of concern, because in most countries that have gone the standards route ‘standards’ have become standardized - standardized curriculum, standardized, tests, standardized teaching which contrary to American rhetoric, results in many children being ‘left behind’.

The pattern is quite universal - declare a crisis, impose standards in a big hurry to avoid debate, then impose measures to ensure compliance with the standards, declare the results of the measures unsatisfactory, blame the teachers and the schools for poor performance, label critics whiners and wimps for using poverty and endemic unemployment as crutches for their own failures.

For schools and teachers it is a ‘catch-22’. If schools refuse to play the game and resist, they are branded as malcontents and worse, or if they work hard and raise levels of student achievement, especially on standardized tests, then the critics will declare that the tests are too easy and schools are still failing. The trick is I suspect, to resist at the right time.

Once the standards-standardization train gets rolling it is impossible to resist. For New Zealand, the train hasn’t quite left the station, and working with and using standards in conjunction with an enlightened curriculum to optimize learning is still possible. At the moment, a reasonable case can be made that well developed and thought out standards as defined in terms expectations for learning can enrich the curriculum. As long as time to reach the standards is a variable, standards can work.

But once the tests come and the meaning becomes more punitive and adversarial and all children are to arrive at the same place at the same time in their learning then my advice is to fight like hell for the sake of your kids and state-supported education.

Just look at the educational ‘train-wrecks’ in the U.S. and U.K.

Sadly for those who see standards as a ‘quick and easy’ way to reform education the route to quality education remains the same - develop a well-educated, well-paid, dedicated teaching cadre, promote leaders who are leaders of learning, and ensure equitable educational opportunities for all.

Not very sexy I’m afraid but tried and true.

Read more »

Time for some real inquiry

How many yellow flower per square metre? How many white flowers? Run a line across and counts numbers of flowers touched ( a line transect). Great maths. What are these flowers? Look , draw and research. Simple stuff but fun. While you are at it lie down in the lawn and write what you feel -maybe a three line poem. Get kids to explore through their senses. All too simple I guess.Could be all over in an hour or so.

The world is full of things to explore, to inquire into, or to wonder about.How come so few teachers seem to understand this simple idea. If you look around your school ( or your classroom) at this time of year you ought to see rooms full of inquiries - particularly exploring the environment. My experience, however, is that you won't see much. Just lots of literacy and numeracy and little else. Even the art is formulaic. Boy have we lost the plot over the years. So much for all this 'best practice' and an obsession with testing. Might as well go the whole hog and get into National Standards.

Term four , with the weather improving, is time to get out and about and to explore the immediate environment. And in term four all the students should have in place all the literacy ( language expressive arts), observational skills ( basis of art and science) numeracy and science skills to work independently. I, of course, realize that this is not the case! Hope I am wrong!

Here are some suggestions:

What plants grow along side the roadside, the fence line or in a waste area. Choose one to study. You don't need to know the names of the plants.Just number or invent names for them.Or take digital photos with macro lens setting. As the study progresses children will learn a few of the common and scientific names. Study one plants in depth during literacy time and later children can choose one to study for themselves. Develop some criteria to use to study e.g shape of leaves? height? spread? how common? describe flowers or seeds etc? Is it a weed -what is a weed?

Study a common flower as a class to 'scaffold' how students could study plant of their own choice in their own garden. Once again children could gain real knowledge as the study progresses. For art, after looking at some real flowers ( observational drawing), invent some magic flowers in a vase. Write a few thought poems. Forget this genre nonsense!

What plants grow in your school lawn?

Study the monarch and swan plant.

What do children know about common vegetables.Display some vegetable .Draw them. Cross sections of some plants are interesting. Research the history of common vegetables and where they originated from.

Study a tree of note in the school grounds.

What are the common birds in the school grounds?

Once you start looking the ideas are endless -and then there are pieces of bush, swamp, and seashore to study.

Why bore kids with teacher planned lessons - there is a world of difference to explore 'just outside the window'.

Read more »

Posted in: Action Plans and Lessons,inquiry learning,teaching and learning

A small inquiry study - and some big issues.

Teachers should always be on the alert for inquiry challenges for their students. Teaching,as Jerome Bruner says, 'is the canny art of intellectual temptation'. At this time of the years, if inquiry learning has been central to learning, students ought by now to have in place all the skills to be able to do so. This presumes that the literacy time has been made full use of to develop the NZC 'seeking, using and creating skills'. Inqury skills ought to have been introduced (and 'scaffolded') by teachers during the year. The best assessment of learning is not all the tests teachers currenty give students , often out of context, but to get students to choose and complete an independent study of their own choice.

I bet few kids can! the ability to inquire is the point of real life learning!

November is the time to take a close look at a flax plant as they are now in full flower. Most schools have a few plants in their school grounds; some even are close to flax plants growing in their natural habitat.

What do your students know about flax bushes? Do they know anything of the plant itself as a species? How many have flax in their home gardens? Do they know any thing about its place in Maori culture? Do they know anything about the place of flax in early European commerce?

If not what about a mini inquiry unit - possibly a chance to introduce some real inquiry skills before the class is given a choice of studies for a final 'authentic' assessment.

If you want some help here is a link to assist you.
And another.

While I talking about 'real' inquiry it was enlightening to read Kelvin Smythe's recent comments about developing a 'feeling for' approach to learning. He comments that most 'so called' inquiry learning is more 'finding out' about rather than developing a 'feeling for' inquiry - or if studying other cultures the people themselves.

He writes:

There is another way to the curriculum, ironically, it is our way, our holistic way, which had its antecedence in the late ‘30s, its burgeoning in the ‘40s through the ‘60s, and its embedded influence in classroom practice and decision-making until the ‘80s when New Zealand education became dominated by the managerialist and quantitative philosophy imported from America, and by such accompanying metaphors as accountability, external reviews, stakeholders, provider capture, assessment, national standards, achievement objectives, skills, and education as a science.

This other way still retains influence in many of our practices and in the hearts and minds of those who have directly experienced it and who are dismayed that education has lost its soul to a system designed by politicians, education bureaucrats and quantitative academics for ease of political and bureaucratic control.

The feeling for approach to social studies.... was one of those curriculum practices influenced by the holistic philosophy and was to become a reasonably significant expression of it, before, too, it was eclipsed by the managerialist and quantitative philosophy of the ‘80s. It was an approach to social studies which had as its purpose the developing of a feeling for the people being studied by gaining a considerable amount of information about those people in an interesting way, to powerful affective effect – which is a key characteristic of the holistic.

Those interesting ways encompassed such characteristics as using real contexts, divergent and imaginative thinking, and genuine problem solving. All this organised by a dynamic main aim which permitted considerable teaching and learning manoeuvre, supported by a few aims, with achievement objectives eschewed as objectives, but embraced as criteria for observational criteria – another key characteristic of the holistic.

As well as the main aim to tie the feeling for approach to social studies together was the idea of teaching as an art in which the teacher with a feeling for the feeling for made decisions that made it all work for children.

The feeling for basis to the curriculum is based on the affective through cognitive challenge, on children gaining knowledge and understandings that combine to have significant affective effect. The holistic nature of the feeling for basis to the curriculum is based on the integration of the affective, cognitive, and skill through an overarching main aim. This main aim is so designed to provide both considerable teaching and learning freedom and definite teaching and learning coherence. Skills being given attention to the extent they are used for gaining and using knowledge.

The label ‘feeling for’ is used because it points, in the first instance, directly to the child, not some abstract programme quality. It means considerably more than children expressing interest or enthusiasm for their learning; it is about an affective response being established that is so stable and powerful as to invoke the transformational and, on occasion, to achieve it.

The way a feeling for is established, and the nature and focus of that feeling for, will, of course, vary from curriculum area to curriculum area:

1. In social studies the focus will be on getting close to the people and human situations being considered.

2. In science, often using real-life contexts, on the spirit and adventure of finding out about the natural, physical world, and the wider universe.

3. In the arts, on sincerity of observation, effectiveness of expression, and exploration and discovery (the arts can often be presented to children as something to be done rather than something to be resolved).

4. In writing, according to purpose, writing with sincerity and clarity (expressive), with persuasiveness and clarity (argument), with logic and clarity (expository) – ‘clarity’ encompassing everything from style, to sentence and paragraph structure, to grammar, to spelling, to presentation.

5. In reading, on developing an abiding love for the act of reading (yes, the ‘I can read’ emphasis of our holistic reading philosophy had it right).

6. In maths, often using real-life contexts, on the spirit and adventure of finding out about the use of patterns and relationships in quantities, space, and time (it comes as a revelation to children that maths can about ideas, not just ‘facts’, therefore disputable).

7. In technology, often using real-life contexts, on abilities that are deeply significant to them (I am referring to practical life abilities as against systems theories – for instance, on healthy cooking in the home rather than food processing in a factory).

8. In health, often using real-life contexts, on health matters as problematic

For those who are sick of the current managerial approach to learning read his full article. And get some real insight into what lies behind National Standards.

I am not so sure how many teachers and schools are currently introducing integrated or holistic studies to their children.

Most schools I visit seem to place all their focus on literacy and numeracy- and the National Standards will continue this distorted emphasis.

Literacy and numeracy ought to be seen for what they are - vital 'foundation skills' necessary to ensure students are able to continue 'seeking, using and creating their own knowledge'; inquiry learning.

Read more »

Let's have some real creativity!

Too many teachers and principals have become sidetracked by data collection and compliance requirements - some even believe in them. All this has created a surveillance risk averse culture, all about conformity, compromise and being controlled and is nothing to do with creativity. Too many principals have become unwittingly part of the problem.

Lets be honest, there never was that much creativity in our schools. They have aways been more conservative than innovative and this includes many so called child-centred primary teachers. Creativity is seen when students and teacher diversity is appreciated, experiential learning valued, and where students complete powerful personal 'products' following up their own ideas in: in depth research, poetic writing, the creative arts - including these days information technology. The 'default mode' for most primary teachers is literacy and numeracy first and others areas in the time remaining. Over the years I have worked with some truly creative teachers ( and far fewer principals ) and it their ideas I share. Nothing of any real creativity has come from recent 'delivery' orientated contracted advisers yet, in past days, such advisers were the key to creative thinking. Must be time for me to go!

Sir Ken Robinson is to give a keynote at a conference in Palmerston North late next January. He should be inspirational. As I am also to give a keynote I will be present to hear him. But I am betting that, after all is said, little will be done. The ground is just not right for creativity to catch on - hopefully I am wrong. Maybe Sir Ken will be the catalyst we need to escape current formulaic teaching?

True creativity involves an element of tension as it is always not clear as to what will be finally achieved. Decisions and choices have to made along the way , often without full understanding, which grows and evolves in the process. This is in contrast with the current, so called scientific management model which insists on predetermined goals, intentions and 'what are (we) learning today'( WALT). True science is about being comfortable about the unknown and is an area involving creativity - being both open and skeptical.

Sir Ken Robinson has written that we have a problem as worrying as the ecological strip mining of our environmental resources. There is, he writes, a crisis of the mind - we are strip mining children's brains in our focus on delivering literacy and numeracy. In this obsessive process teachers are unaware of the talents not being looked for. As a result too many students simply end up by enduring school and too many never find out what they are good at - even the so called successful achievers; few end up loving learning. The future depends on encouraging and developing the talents of all children. Until we do we will aways have an 'achievement tail'; kids who see no point in school without a home culture to support them to persist.

Most people, according to creativity expert Robert Fritz, can't cope with creativity because they want quick answers and don't like living in the realm of not knowing, the very essence of science and creativity. Such people, he says, are intolerant of these moments of confusion not appreciating that it is such confusions that are the best learning moments of all. In such times creative people (artists or scientists) discover original ideas and where people go beyond usual ways of solving problems; when Fritz says, 'creativity gets into gear'.

Fritz writes that we are frightened of discrepancies and our instincts are to solve problems and end the tension of not knowing. Creativity accepts not knowing , happy to try out unusual ideas even if they 'feel' uncomfortable. Being creative means accepting such 'feelings'

Fritz writes that many creative people are happy to leave the problem for a while, to sleep on the problem, and, as a result, new ideas often emerge. Creativity needs time. Leaving the problem unresolved provides the tension for ideas to be generated.

This perception of creativity is different from what teachers often call creativity where children are encouraged to 'be creative' and to accept whatever is given. Fritz's definition is deeper and slower not just fun and messing around. Fritz is about focusing the mind on the problem not just freeing the mind and picking from the best ideas to solve the problem on the spot. True creative people think deeply about the problem they are trying to solve without rushing in to solving it. This Fritz writes is problem solving but it is not necessarily creative.

The mind is a sucker for quick answers and theories even if little real understanding is gained. Fritz quotes Sherlock Holmes who, when asked by his poor hapless Watson, if he suspected anyone, said, "Yes. Myself.Of coming to an answer prematurely".

So let's have more creativity ( unknowability) and less data collection and premature superficial thinking. And let's help our students develop their talents - in whatever area that attracts them.

This is what marks out the few creative teachers I like ( mostly liked) to work with. Too many teachers ( and most principals) are just too busy trying to solve imposed compliance problems to understand let alone risk creativity.

Read more »

Posted in: Big Picture,Creative teaching,Creativity,Personalized Learning,Talent Development,teaching and learning

Authentic Assessment.

Students in school I loved to visit have found a wasps nest in the school grounds. After local expertise was used to destroy the nest, and with the teachers help, the students set about to study wasps and how they organise themselves. They sorted out their questions , worked out what they already knew and involved themselves in , as the revised curriculum says, 'seeking, using and creating their own knowledge'. They took the nest a part , drew what they saw, completed drawing of the various stages in the wasps life cycle and read all about wasp 'culture' to answer their questions in their own words. All their research work was presented using charts each one representing individual children's thoughts and drawings. They also painted what they felt interesting,and wrote their creative thoughts.

The quality of their presentations were really impressive having been taught how to layout their work artistically.

This is what learning is all about. Shame it is not so common these days. These students easily applied what skills they had gained to undertake individually chosen studies which the teacher used to assess progress and to determine what extra help was required.


It seems strange to use the term authentic assessment. It implies that much of the assessment used in schools is inauthentic. Which, of course, I believe it is.

If I wanted to see how well students can apply what they have been taught is to ask them to undertake an independent study with no help from the teachers -except for the normal bit of advice as required.

This form of assessment would tell me all about the children's attitudes, independence, research reading skills, writing skills, design and presentation skills and their ability to present their ideas making use of their own 'voice' or individuality. To me this would be more valuable that all the current 'evidence based' data collecting teaching that consumes teachers today.

It would also tell me how good the teaching had been prior to the task - this is why the best time for such a challenge is in Term Four, after all the skills had been 'scaffolded' into place. Students need to be able to transfer what they have learnt , by exhibiting, demonstrating, or applying. Any other sort of assessment may result in paper achievement only.

Most of such an authentic assessment task would demonstrate if students had learnt the lesson of doing something well rather than the more common, and faster, 'cutting and pasting' approach.

By term four students should have internalised the criteria for completing such a study but teachers could clarify, or renegotiate, them before the task.

Suitability of the study chosen.
Quality of the key questions.
Indication of their prior knowledge.
Quality of observation and written descriptions as required.
Depth of understanding seen through written research
Use of diagrams and focused illustrations
Quality of s design and presentation.

Teachers who enter their students into science or maths fairs will be aware of such criteria. Students need to have understood that assessment will focus on depth of their understanding - quality of thought not quantity.

Be interesting to see how students would handle such a task. I have my doubts many students could achieve what some of us used to use as our main form of assessing our teaching?

I certainly see little evidence of real student authentic research.

Such a task could begin as early as year three -even earlier.

Read more »

Posted in: Action Plans and Lessons,Assessment,Creative teaching,inquiry learning,Integrated Learning,Personalized Learning,project based learning,teaching and learning