ALEA conference – day 2

Another huge day of wondering and questioning which reminds me why I love to blog – this is my reflection time, when I try to distill the essence of the messages I’ve heard and consider what the implications are for the world/s I inhabit.

Ignorance killed the cat: What’s left out of literacy research & policy, and the implications for teachers’ knowledge and practice – Peter Freebody

Peter Freebody spoke about the need for educators to be ‘research savvy’ and not just blindly dismiss or accept research and this was something that instantly resonated with me. There has been such a push over the last few years about ‘research led practice’ however few stop to consider whether they have the knowledge or experience in this area to really make sense of and evaluate the research in question.

To demonstrate this, Peter spoke about both PISA and PIAAC and highlighted some of the results that the media don’t focus on – that girls consistently outperform boys in reading on PISA but that the situation is flipped when adults are tested, with men outperforming women. More than asking a simple ‘why?’, he encouraged a deeper ‘what’s going on here?’ to look into it from all angles and beyond just the results.

Considering what’s included in research and what’s missing is an important step towards evaluating its value. National/International level reading data, for example, rarely breaks reading down into the different skills of readers (and frequently isn’t even testing all of those skills in the first place). Knowing this, it makes sense that, as reading isn’t a single entity which an individual can be graded on, there can be no silver bullet which will fix/move/change/extend all learners. As a complex set of skills which even more complex humans acquire at different rates, both our data and our responses need to be tailored to individuals and their needs.

Key message – Literacy is complex and data often tries to make it look easy and neat. Don’t be sucked in and make sure you understand the story behind it before you start believing and acting on it.

New media & new learning – Mary Kalantzis & Bill Cope

During my Masters and PhD studies, I spent a lot of time quoting these two but it was the first time I’ve actually seen them in person. Mary’s comment about Australia’s general reluctance to mandate when it comes to education, instead leaving the door open to creativity instantly struck a chord. And, like Peter Freebody before her, she reiterated the diversity in our students and their needs and, therefore, how it was inevitable that there wouldn’t be one right way to teach them all (as much as politicians may try to convince us otherwise).

Bill Cope then took up the narrative, reminding us that

the classroom is a 19th century invention to pass knowledge from the teacher to the student

and that many new technologies and trends (such as flipping classrooms, e-textbooks and electronic whiteboards) simply repeated old pedagogies rather than replacing or reinventing them. Instead, he proposed using the affordances of technology to build the classroom as a knowledge community and change what learning environments could be.

An example of this is Scholar, an online creation and collaboration tool which allows learners to create multimodal texts, seek and provide others with feedback and contribute to a purposeful learning community. I only got the opportunity to look briefly at it today but am keen to explore further. Equally in need of further exploration are the amazing range of resources on Bill & Mary’s website.

Key message – Learning is at the heart of what we do, as teachers & as human beings. Schools and classrooms are social constructs that meet/met specific purposes but aren’t immovable, prerequisites for learning. Technology is pedagogically neutral yet can be a great enabler through the affordances it provides.

What do teachers of literacy do? The importance of speaking up, speaking out and speaking loudly – Misty Adoniou

Misty unapologetically told us her session would be ‘bolshy’ & it really was the perfect tone for her message – teachers need to speak up, speak out and speak loudly.

Why?

  • because our work is important: We don’t always know it but we have a huge impact on children’s and, later, adult’s lives, within classrooms and long after they leave them
  • because others get it wrong: Misty gave some great examples of this from politicians and those appointed to positions of power over education (but rarely educators themselves). My favourite was Christopher Pyne who claimed that:

    Everyone’s been to school; everyone’s an expert in education one way or the other

  • because if we don’t speak for those who need us most, who will?: Misty challenged us to think of who our curriculum represented and whether all of our learners would be able to see themselves represented in it. It’s not hard to see the answer when you consider who wrote it and reviewed it.
  • because we need to for our own happiness: Misty shared a quote from a first year educator she visited, who summed up what so many of us feel after being dragged through the wheels of education for a few years. She said to her:

    Don’t let me forget the teacher I wanted to become

Most importantly, Misty encouraged us to find our ‘desire path’ through the curriculum to keep our spirits alive and to make sure we speak out – in our classrooms, our staffrooms and wherever we can. Because it matters. She described it as a revolution, albeit one which will not be televised or have a theme song or a t-shirt. But be part of it anyway.

Key message: One of Misty’s comments summed it up nicely – if you don’t engage in the politics of teaching, others will run it for you. So speak up. Speak out. And loud.

Advertisements