The only time goodbye is painful is when you know you’ll never say hello again

As I wove through the mountains on the Sea to Sky highway, singing along to the Wicked soundtrack with AC on high to cool us in the growing heat on route to Williams Lake, I was struck with the overwhelming realization – I have no school tomorrow. I will not see my Grade 7s off to high school. I will not get to listen to them talk about their summer plans, their fall plans, their anxieties and excitements about the coming changes. I will not be imparting wisdom into their spongey brains, or listen to their quiet victories as they finally understand the math I’ve been teaching them. I will not get to tell them, for the hundredth time, to stop underestimating their intelligence and perseverance, that they “got this” and can complete the assignment to the best of their abilities if they would just take it one step at a time. I will not greet them in the morning, sign their planners in the afternoon and mark their assignments all night. For a majority of them, I will most likely never see them again.

And this is only the first time this is going to happen to me.

It took a few days to let the end of practicum sink in. I didn’t think it would be such a mental transition. I thought that I would take all my stuff home, set my daybook on the dining room table with all the other junk I accumulated over the past 10 weeks, and feel the sadness that was sure to come as it does with any form of goodbye. And while I cried, especially reading over the heartfelt messages some of the students left me, it still didn’t feel real. But now, as I sit hours away from the school, I know there is no going back. At least not to the class that I’m now used to. Does it feel this way every time?

We are encouraged to cultivate relationships with our students to better the learning environment – “[t]eachers who experience close relationships with students reported that their students were less likely to avoid school, appeared more self-directed, more cooperative and more engaged in learning” (Rimm-Kaufman & Sandilos, 2016). I believe this is true, whole heartedly. While the rambunctiousness will still be there (no amount of connection with the teacher will ever abolish the natural behaviours of most children), they tend to be calmer when there is a sense of camaraderie in the class. Even if one of the comrades is the teacher. And yet, in cultivating these relationships, there is a level of attachment that is created between the teacher and the students.

One study, that I have not been able to track down, describes an account of a teacher whose class becomes such a tight knit community that they would defend each other, including the teacher, to anyone who seemed to be talking down about the class or didn’t fit in just yet. As oddly wonderful as it can seem (except for the part where the new kids were often shunned unless they fit in seamlessly), the end of the year had to have been somewhat traumatic for the students. It’s true that they would likely be carrying on into the next grade level with at least some of their classmates, but it would not be the same – it would not be that exact classroom, with that exact mix of kids and that exact teacher leading the charge. And the teacher would have a whole new group to get to know and create the community with. It had to have been difficult for all of them involved. Yet, the teacher plans to do this to some degree every year. How do you do this over and over again and not get worn down by how emotionally taxing it is?

Granted, this was my first class and we went on quite a journey together – we learned from each other, and they will always hold a special place in my heart. And I’m sure in the days to come, I’ll be busy enough to stop wondering what their doing in class, if soandso is struggling with their math and completing their work, or that one kid is still taking the longest route around the class to socialize with all their friends before getting a drink of water (the answer will always be yes to the latter. It’s just who they are.). Right now, though, as I wait to embark on the next chapter of this crazy year long journey, I worry that they’ll forget me when I know I’ll never forget them.

Bibliography

Rimm-Kaufman, S., and Sandilos, L. (2016) Improving Students’ Relationships with Teachers to Provide Essential Supports for Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/education/k12/relationships.aspx

Inquiry Based Learning in Special Education

“Teachers would do well to have a clear idea of their student learning needs, so they are able to use a checklist approach to ensure the outcomes which need to be covered. Think about curriculum areas as well as individual needs such as fine motor skills, communication, interpersonal skills, body language, self expression etc. in creating content for students.”

– Anne Vize

This article looks at IBL in relation to Special Education, which was a specific topic that I had wanted to explore during my inquiry project – how do we get varied learners engaged with IBL. Anne Vize covers the advantages and disadvantages of IBL in relation to special education – as inquiry puts the onus on the students to create and implement a project, this allows them to work on their “softer skills” such as teamwork and cooperation, as well as planning, organization and creativity, all of which are skills that varied students often need to focus on and develop. It would be a challenge for the teacher. They would still be in a facilitator role, but their guidance and collaboration between home and school would be necessary, as if they were working with a students new to IBL. Vize repeats the point that IBL, with or without varied students, is more work for the teacher in that there is a lengthier marking process and that planning would have to be done far in advance, but the benefits of IBL outweigh the work, as long as a teacher is willing.

Vize, A. (2012, February). Inquiry Based Learning in Special Education [Web Log Comment]. Retrieved from http://www.brighthubeducation.com/special-ed-inclusion-strategies/17827-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-inquiry-based-learning

Educational Disadvantage and the Community of Inquiry

“[A]n educational disadvantage is an unfavourable condition or circumstance that is responsible for educational impairment. Such conditions can be conceived of as either a deficit suffered by the disadvantaged —such as poverty, parental neglect or lack of adequate educational provision — or else as a disparity between the background culture and values that characterize the student’s out-of-school life-world and those of the school.”

– Philip Cam

In this article, Philip Cam argues against Kirschner, Sweller and Clark’s belief against minimally guided education, insisting that the “Community of Inquiry”, which includes inquiry-based learning, can be beneficial in education – more specifically, for those who are disadvantaged (see quote above on the definition of ‘disadvantaged’). His main points cover student engagement (inquiry learning gives students a level of control over their education, hands some of the responsibility to them, which in turn should influences engagement), developing the capacity to think (in inquiry, we link learning with the students ‘real-life’ experiences, their background knowledge, and interests to their education, and in doing so, allow the students a chance to investigate what might be missing in their knowledge base, and expand on their interests – we teach them how to think more deeply on subjects where as before they would have left it at a surface level), and belonging (there is an emphasis on community and collaboration in inquiry, as well as a focus on personal development – for those that are disadvantaged in a way that could affect their ability to work in a team, accept others opinions or have low self-esteem, it’s an opportunity to grow and develop a healthy state of mind).

Cam, P. (2012, February). Educational Disadvantage and the Community of Inquiry. Retrieved from http://fapsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Phil-Cam-Educational-Disadvantage-and-the-Community-of-Inquiry.pdf

Inquiry Learning in the 21st Century Classroom

This is a blog made by a student studying Primary Education and the influence of inquiry learning. On her blog, she explores the what, why and how of inquiry. What attracted me to this site and has me bookmark it as a resource is that, not only does she cover the benefits and limitations of IBL, which many of my sources do, she also delves into the strategies that teachers can use in their classroom to support IBL, as well as collaboration and community within the classroom environment. Unfortunately, this site hasn’t been update in 5 years, and so it stands to reason that there are other blogs out there that will have more up-to-date information on IBL. I will keep it bookmarked, though, in case Christina does come back to update more.

Christina. (2011). Inquiry Learning in the 21st Century Classroom [Web Log Comment]. Retrieved from http://classroomil.blogspot.ca/

Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivism, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential and Inquiry-Based Teaching

“Problem solving only becomes relatively effective when learners are sufficiently experienced so that studying a worked example, is for them, a redundant activity that increases working memory load compared to generating a known solution. This phenomenon is an example of expertise reversal effect. It emphasizes the importance of providing novices in an area with extensive guidance because they do not have sufficient knowledge in long-term memory to prevent unproductive problem-solving search. That guidance can only be relaxed with increased expertise as knowledge in long-term memory can take over from external guidance.”

– Kirschner, Sweller and Clark

I had a hard time reading this article. In my opinion, the authors lacked an open-mind when examining the “minimal guidance instruction”, but instead viewed it with an already disparaging outlook. Taking into account that it was written a decade ago, and in that decade more and more research in favour of learning environments like IBL has been published, I attempted to read it without prejudice. I still found it very difficult.

I acknowledge that Kirschner, Sweller and Clark were writing from a clinical view – their argument focuses on long-term memory and it’s role in education. What they fail to consider is the process in which IBL is introduced in a student’s education. It appears as if their assumption is that we throw them into the deep end and expect them to find the answers that we want them to find. I expect that, if they were too look at more recent works on inquiry-based learning, they would re-evaluate their assumptions. If that is not the case and they are still opposed despite the evidence of the benefits, they will simply be a part of the camp that stands by the traditional ideologies of education, like in any other ‘radical’ development.

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Clark, R.E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivism, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Retrieved from http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf

Interview with Arthur L. Costa

“it’s that quality of teaching in which teachers ask more questions than they give answers and students have to discover for themselves. And so it’s a very ancient form of learning, starting from Socrates and getting kids to wonder and to think for themselves and to become curious and to answer their own questions rather than transmitting that knowledge.”

– Arthur L. Costa

Arthur L. Costa is the codirector of the Institute for Intelligent Behaviour in Berkley, California. He was interviewed for a workshop held by Joe Exline to obtain a different view on IBL. Costa was asked 16 questions on the subject, from the origins of inquiry-based learning (which he states goes back all the way to Socrates) and what countries use it (Singapore has an interesting way of using IBL where the students and the teachers are all searching for the solution to a problem together) to the comparison of IBL And traditional school (he states that inquiry has students look at a problem longer than traditional schooling, which allows them to have a better understanding of the solution) and the difference between IBL and constructivism (he claims there isn’t so much a difference as IBL is the methodology of constructivism). He goes somewhat into depth about the teacher’s role in IBL – they are there to guide and ask questions to support the students discovery of their answer.

Interview with Arthur L. Costa [Transcripts]. Retrieved from http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/inquiry/index_sub5.html

Applying Technology to Inquiry-Based Learning in Early Childhood Education

“Children spontaneously inquire, asking questions and exploring, to understand the world; it is an important key to their lifelong development that should be cultivated and nurtured […] technology enables inquiry learning that could not be otherwise accomplished by reducing some of the unnecessary, lower-level procedures involved in these tasks.”

– Wang, Kinzie, McGuire, & Pan

In this article, Wang, Kinzie, McGuire and Pan outline how the use of technology in early childhood education prepares students for IBL learning in later years. In their arguments, they give examples of various applications and programs that are age appropriate (like Learning with Nemo, Math Missions, Sammy’s Science House) and explain how they can help with the development of problem solving skills, cognitive and metacognitive processes and utilization of resources. It’s not asking that technology replace teacher facilitation, but to aid it instead. They emphasis that teachers are a critical feature in inquiry-based learning, since they provide the structure and guidance of inquiry throughout their schooling.

Wang, F., Kinzie, M.B., McGuire, P., and Pan, E. (2009, December). Applying Technology to Inquiry-Based Learning in Early Childhood Education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, p. 381-389. doi: 10.1007/s10643-009-0364-6

Inquiry-based teaching in early childhood education – a paradigm shift?

“The formal part of ECE is termed the Foundation Phase and represents the initial stage of schooling. This is where the ‘foundation for further learning is laid’. This is the phase when the learners’ love for science should start and be nurtured so that they may become critical thinkers and develop a curiosity about the world.”

– Stears, James & Beni

Stears, James and Beni give examples of inquiry based learning in early childhood education. Their work is based out of South Africa, where Early Childhood Education spans from birth until the age of nine. While the education system is different from ours on paper, it stands to reason that laying the foundation of inquiry based learning in early childhood education will allow for a more successful educational career in IBL schooling. And the topics in which the students learn in what they call “early childhood education” is similar to what our students learn in elementary school.

What they propose is that students learn a “Beginning Knowledge” that includes natural science and technology, which will better prepare students for their education and will hopefully garner more interest in the sciences. While Stears, James and Beni seem to believe that the educators in these situations should have a science background, I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary.

Stears, M., James, A., and Beni, B. (No Date). Inquiry-based teaching in early childhood education – a paradigm shift?. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/22252534/Inquiry-based_teaching_and_learning_in_early_childhood_teacher_education-_a_paradigm_shift

21st Century Learning: What’s Good for Students is Good for Teachers

“If teachers are to be effective in supporting the development of the 21st century skills of their students, they must be well versed in these skills themselves […] Thus, as life-long learners, it should be evident that teachers can also benefit from participating in learning strategies that mirror those of the 21st century classroom. Reinforcing the notion that if it is good for students, it can be good for teachers.”

– Dr. Camille Rutherford

In this article, Dr. Camille Rutherford talks about how the 21st century learning is good for our students, it is something that us as teacher candidates and teachers should use as well in our own learning. With how diverse we are asked to be in our classroom by way of differentiated learning and IEPs, the “cookie-cutter nature of most teacher education programs, additional qualification courses and professional development (PD) sessions, [leaves] teachers with limited first-hand exposure to having their own learning experience differentiated or personalized” (Rutherford, 2015). Essentially what she is saying is that teachers and teacher candidates need to be a part of the classroom that 21st century learning is creating – we have to learn in an inquiry-based environment, with access to as much tech that we would have in our classroom (if not more so that we can be prepared for anything), and we must be well versed in the skills of creativity, communication, and creative/critical thinking (Rutherford, 2015).

Rutherford, C. (2015, March). 21st century learning: What’s good for students is good for teachers [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/blog/dr-camille-rutherford/2015/03/1/21st-century-learning-what%E2%80%99s-good-students-good-teachers

The “Basics” and Inquiry Teaching

“The impression that educators must choose between ‘back to basics’ and ‘inquiry or discovery learning’ often propels the educational policy pendulum to oversimplify and overact.”

– Roland Case

This article by Roland Case outlines the criticisms against and the arguments for inquiry-based learning. It’s the first piece that I have found that actually outlines the criticisms in depth, and they bring up some good concerns. The first critique is that many critics will say “that students can’t possibly discover everything we want them to learn” (Case, 2015), which is true but not what the IBL model is asking for. Instead, Case proposes that you offer students some possible formulae to consider, to investigate, and not just accept as the answers. The second criticism speaks to the idea that there are basics that students need to know through memorization, like consonants and vowels, or subtraction and addition. And while the need for basics is true, memorization isn’t the only way that the students can learn it. As Case (2015) says, “[t]he more we help students comprehend what we want them to remember, the less students need to learn by memorization” (2015). In other words, give the students an example of how something works, and then let them discover one that works better for them.

In support of inquiry, Case looks to the experience of himself and his colleagues of over 20 years, working with over 125,000 educators all over the world. Their work with critical inquiry learning concluded with positive outcomes in any school, no matter the socio-economic status of the school’s community.

As I stated before, this is the first article I found that really explored the other side of my questions.

Case, R. (2015, December). The “basics” and inquiry teaching [Web Log Comment]. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/%E2%80%9Cbasics%E2%80%9D-and-inquiry-teaching