AiFL

Hmm. I've blogged about this before but having Twittered (Tweeted?) about it on Friday at the AiFL day in Inverness I thought I'd say some more.

For a curriculum which purports to be heading towards Active Learning and for an initiative (AiFL) which puts itself firmly at the heart ("embedded" being the current buzz word) of said curriculum, how is it still possible for a roomful of teachers to be talked at rather than interacted with?

I don't wish to appear rude or disrespectful towards a man who's clearly a respected authority on such matters, but it does strike me as odd that something which appears to be so firmly at the core of AiFL (namely "meaningful dialogue") is not firmly at the core of presentations on the subject.

Perhaps the very nature of presenting to a large group is unsuited to engaging in dialogue but surely we could use the formative assessment-based models of "think-pair-share" to discuss ideas and engage with the concepts? Could meaningful links be better made between theory and practice if we attempted to learn by doing?

How can we expect our learners in the classroom to be motivated by this area if we ourselves are turned off by the way in which it's presented? Or perhaps it's a clever and cunning ruse to make us examine our practice closely and to say "now, I reckon an active approach would be better here, think I'll try it back in class..."

Or am I being too hopeful?

Lousie Hayward made a lot of sense though. Which was nice. I can now use the phrase "systemic compatibility" and know what it means AND know that it's a useful concept.

Edit: Here's the stuff I was after about practicing what is preached...Doug Dickinson (see 9th March entry) and Will Richardson.

Skype-ing with Tommy Cooper...

"Doctor, I can't pronounce my F's, T's and H's." "Well you can't say fairer than that then"

What does all that have to do with ACfE? Well you may ask. It's really the punchline I was interested in. What are we looking to do with some of these enriching, cross-curricular activities (or "experiences" if you will)? There's a fairly comprehensive list which the kids came up with on the impact of their Skype Q&A with the Eorpa team today. Examining it reads, I think, like a bit of a wish-list for some of the things we'd (as staff) hope the kids would "get" from ACfE.

"...you can't say fairer..." etc, etc.

Ah, but is it really schoolwork?

That seems to be one of the main questions asked about the new Curriculum for Excellence when parents and the like find out about some of the "non-traditional" things their children are doing in - and out of - class.


Without waffling on about the Four Capacities of ACfE, I think it's fair to say that it presents some challenges for teachers in terms of how we can assess the learning that's taking place. Indeed, it's also fair to say that it presents challenges - and opportunities - in terms of thinking about what we need to assess.


The idea of assessing what we value and valuing what we assess must surely be one of the guiding principles in designing so-called "experiences" for learners in school.

The new curriculum challenges many preconceived ideas about what is taught and how it is taught. Debates rage around "style over content" and questions will be heard in many a staffroom about whether or not any of this is actually teaching the children anything.


I would argue that this is surely the very point of the exercise - are we really trying to teach them "things" (facts, processess, procedures, etc) or are we trying to empower them to think for themselves and take control of their own learning?


This could easily be dismissed by saying "of course it's about empowerment...give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day but show him how to fish..." etc, etc. However, there will always be those who will - rightly - contend that the basics (whatever they may be deemed to be depending on the school/local authority/political climate) must be in place before you can do anything else.


Quite. But who says that once the foundations are in you have to build all the houses in the same way? To stretch a building analogy, I think that ACfE should have Grand Designs for all learners; I hope to look in this blog at some of the ways in which I try to challenge the children in my class, to empower them, to value each and every individual contribution on its own merits and to give my take on some of the ways I think we can gather evidence of what's useful or not.