Multiple ways of knowing - an inquiry into conflict resolution

I couldn't resist sharing the progression of this inquiry as it unfolds among our grade three students here at BHA. The UOI that our three Grade Three classes are currently exploring falls under the TDTheme of 'Sharing the planet' and the central idea is: Effective communication can resolve conflict. The focus on this post will be on the important role that our single subject teachers have played in this inquiry so far.

The students were prompted to consider the last time, or worst time, they were involved in a conflict with friends or siblings. They were asked to think of this as a story with a beginning, middle and end.

Beginning - what happened to give rise to a conflict situation?

Middle - what happened during the communication process to try and solve the conflict situation?

End - how was the conflict resolved and how did it move into peace?

In small groups they then chose one story to represent in a drawing. The students were given long sheets of paper and asked to think about the kinds of colours, shapes, lines, forms and patterns that would best describe what was happening in the three different parts of the conflict story. The drawings below show the conflict stories and their 3 parts; conflict, communication, resolution/peace. The next step is for the students to add emphasis and further structure to the drawings using collage shapes. They will then transition over to our music teacher and consider similar concepts such as dynamics and rhythm that represent the ideas of conflict and peace. To synthesise everything, the students will cut-out and re-arrange their designs as they compose an original score to reflect their stories.

This process clearly offers a tremendous insight into the students' understanding of the process of conflict resolution. Conflict starts out as a range of different opinions and ideas all jostling for the front position. Sometimes it's messier than what it started out like before it gets better. There's usually a breakout moment that occurs prior to the solution. When you get to a stage of finding common ground it is like the pieces fit together. Peace and love may not always be the outcome - sometime we try to cover up a conflict with a resolution. These are all big ideas that are worthy of inquiry into peace and conflict at any age.

So it teaches us two very important lessons about inquiry. (1) Students of any age are able to think conceptually and (2) Teachers must be open to providing multiple pathways for their students to express their understandings.

It is highly unlikely that the students at our school would have been able to articulate these ideas in written form alone. Yes, the teachers helped to tease out the verbal responses from the students (with translation required for some), but that's their role - to listen, not to tell. The point is that those responses were constructed by the students themselves and they may not have seen the light of day if this opportunity had not be available to them. This is succinctly summarised by any Reggio-inspired educator when they talk about the hundred languages of children.

The other beautiful thing about this connection to the UOI is that it was completely unplanned in terms of collaboration between the homeroom teachers and specialists. The idea started as a conversation between our Music and Visual Art teachers and they thought they'd give it a shot. There was no pressure to ensure that they fit in with what was happening in class* so there was a lot of freedom to test out different approaches. When the connections began to appear as significant and highly relevant for the learning that was also happening in the classroom, a lot of discussion between all teachers followed. Although making a strong connection with the unit of inquiry may not have been the first priority for music and art, creating an authentic learning experience certainly was. This idea grew legs because of the teachers' commitment to genuine learning and the lens of the unit of inquiry provided this without being forced.




* To clarify this, at this stage in our school's journey we ask that subject specialists meaningfully collaborate on at least one UOI with each grade throughout the year. They can certainly contribute to more than that, but one is the minimum requirement.

What Hamilton can teach us about intelligence and leadership

As a fan of musical theater I have been swept up in the fanfare surrounding Hamilton, the musical based on the life of American founding father Alexander Hamilton told through medium of hip-hop and rap. While my friends and colleagues wouldn’t describe me as a rap diehard, I do have an appreciation for the form and the lyrical tapestry that Lin Manuel Miranda weaves to tell the tale of Hamilton is something to behold.

Manuel Miranda appears to correlate the ability of a character to rap with their perceived historical place in the spectrum of intelligence. Those that are characterised as prodigiously intelligent (Hamilton, George Washington, Aaron Burr, Marque de Lafayette, Thomas Jefferson) rap regularly, often with intricate rhyming patterns. Those that are less intelligent rap less sophisticated verses, or sometimes not at all. One of those characters is that of Hamilton’s eventual wife - Elizabeth Schyler. Eliza comes from a well-to-do family and also has two other sisters (Angelica and Peggie) that are constant targets of affection from suitors looking to elevate their status by marrying into such a family. Eliza does not rap throughout the entire musical whereas her revered sister, Angelica, has many moments where she raps her story. She is said to be able to ‘match wits’ with Hamilton and certainly earns the moniker of being the most intelligent of all the Schyler sisters.

So what does a person do when they're a part of the hip hop scene but don’t rap? They provide a backdrop for the artists to rhyme verses. Us lay-people typically know this as beat boxing and it can take many different forms. Those who beat box provide a tailored backing track for others to rap to. So there you have it, intelligent people rap and those lower down the cognitive ladder beat box.

This analogy serves as a useful backdrop for learning, leadership and education. As it did back in the 1700s, society still has a tendency to define intelligence through a narrow lens. Unfortunately it appears as though our definition hasn’t evolved over the past 300-odd years. Typically those that are competent scientists and mathematicians find themselves somewhere near the top of the pile, then come those that are gifted with writing, reading and speaking. The humanities usually follow and everything is rounded out by followers of the arts and physical pursuits. Despite recent commentary from modern educational thinkers, this model still pervades many societies and cultures.

By following this, Eliza is not seen as being intelligent. Hamilton is clearly adept with words and numbers (and can rap very well), so he has her covered. But one thing that we know about intelligence is that it manifests itself in different ways. What the beat boxers of this world show us is that they possess a great deal of emotional intelligence. No-one in this world can claim to be the top dog at everything and those that beat box show us that they possess the self-awareness to not only recognise talents in others, but also to notice when opportunities arise for them to support these talents. I believe that good leaders are like this. They know when to rap and when to beat box. They are able to adapt their leadership style to either engage and facilitate inquiry among their colleagues or just as easily support, pacify, console and coach, depending on what the situation requires. After all, leadership is context-driven. I often wonder what our current world would be like if some of the leaders of the past were more like Eliza and less like Hamilton.

Intelligence isn’t a one-size-fits-all model to behold and it most certainly isn’t hierarchical (at least not in the way that we most commonly define it now). We need to challenge ourselves to expand our view of intelligence so that both the Eliza’s and Hamilton’s of our time are able to find their place in the world in a meaningful way.

Photo Credit: Gamma Man via Compfight cc

Individuality

Over part of my holiday I was lucky enough to explore the Burgundy region of France. It was beautiful and it was nice to spend some time with my entire family for the first time in six years – the wine certainly helped!

On one of the days we went on a wine tour and the guide was asked what vintages were considered good for this region. Like a good salesman, he answered that ‘every year for these grapes are good years!’ The point that he was trying to make is that each year is different. This may be due to the amount of sun the grapes see for that year, the slope of the limestone in that particular plot, the humidity, and the amount of rainfall – the factors are too many to list.

When it comes to considering whether or not a year is a ‘good’ year, it is not necessarily the vintage of the grape (although this can help) but the taste buds of the consumer that decides. People’s tastes are different and it is up to them to decide what they do and do not like. Also, the way the final product tastes one year may not be the same as the next so the wine is constantly changing. Our guide was most unimpressed with the way the some wines are produced to taste exactly the same out of every bottle, instead of individualized each year.

On the car ride back to our accommodation, I began thinking how this can be very similar to teaching. Each student we teach is different and there is no one way (or vintage) that is right for each person. Our future depends on us not producing students that are exactly the same as each other. We are not in an industrial economic age anymore and, as far as ‘intellect’ is concerned, ‘book smart’ people are not the only ones who have valuable ideas to contribute to our societies. There are dangers of confirming to standards and this is something that we need to consider when standardizing education. What we need for the future is not the same version of one vintage, but a variety of vintages each with their different strengths.

Fast Food Education

Standardised testing is common throughout many school systems. The results are used for a myriad of reasons, from comparing national standards to other countries, to exploring whether students are achieving at a predetermined level that is designated by a school.

I believe tests are useful. Administered in the right way, they can help a student see what they know and what they still need to improve at. This can aid in raising standards, which is generally the goal of any test.

The problem with this is that many people identify standardised testing with raising standards. This isn't the case. Borrowing from the preachings of Ken Robinson et al., standardised testing serves to create conformity among it's recipients. It makes sure everyone can so the same thing at the same stage. This has been referred to 'fast food education' - a lot of the same thing. The argument against this type of conformity is that humans are not machines. We don't all perform at the same level at the same time for the same rate. We are individuals who all develop at different rates and, if you believe in multiple intelligences, learn in different ways.

We should do the best we can to create systems of education that cultivate conditions to let our students flourish. By trying to ensure that everyone can do the same things, at the same stage of their lives, we are sending a message to some students that they are not good enough. What does this do their psyche if they begin hearing it at the age of 8?

It concerns me that education in Australia seems to heading down the same path as the US is finally beginning to shy away from. The No Child Left Behind Act failed and the NAPLAN assessments introduced in Australia in 2008 similarly has the potential to lower standards, instead of raise them.

The school I am currently working at is at the pointy end of the process of developing learning outcomes for each grade level at our school. This is helping them achieve their goal of creating a clear and connected curriculum for K-12. Being an International School that is a private institution, they don't have the shackles of a national curriculum to adhere to. The idea is that stake-holders will be able to see what students will be able to know, understand and do at each year of their education. I think it is important for a school to have a clear and strong curriculum. How else can we drive daily instruction in relation to the school's values? During our process, the usual concerns of OBE have been raised: Are we measuring everyone to a minimum standard? What happens if students don't achieve the required level? What happens if they do it before they're 'meant' to? How will these affect assessment and reporting processes?

I advocate certain aspects of OBE. It is based on constructivism theories, it doesn't compare students to other students and assumes nothing in terms of student's capabilities. What concerns me is that if outcomes are too shallow (ie. 'a mile long and an inch deep' - as Linda Darling-Hammond puts it) or restrictive and narrow, then we run the risk of measuring our students to the same standards and this can also lends itself to an over-emphasis on standardised testing procedures. We need to ensure that we develop continuum based outcomes that allow students to achieve at a rate that is developmentally appropriate for them.

What is Creativity?

I recently (re) watched a speech by Sir Ken Robinson about changing the education paradigm. The above clip is an abridged version but hits the main points. He raises some very interesting ideas, most of which I agree with, and challenges society to redefine their thinking about how we view and value education.

His major argument is that schools systematically (but not deliberately) destroy creativity in our students. Sir Ken defines creativity as a process of putting your imagination to work - applying your imagination. It is the process of having original ideas that have value.

He mentions three key points in relation to creativity. It is a process, not an event. You have to work on and refine it. Historically there are some exceptions, such as Mozart, (who was said to have never refined his work) but this is the exception, not the norm. Robinson states that it is a process we can plan and teach. Like literacy, we can give people the tools to go through the writing process, but can't say what they will write. We can give students the tools to be creative, but cannot tell them what to think.

Secondly, it is about originality. Thinking things that are either new to yourself, your workplace or even to history.

The third point is about value. Any old ideas are not creative - they have to hold value. Understanding which values to apply to an idea is a key part of creativity. Too often ideas are dismissed because people apply the wrong values to them. They relate to their present values instead of what might evolve. A classic example of this is the internet. When it first hit the mainstream some people thought it was clever but not very useful. Tell that to the people who came up with E-Bay!

This third point is something that I think teachers can have a definite impact on with their students. Teaching them how to apply critical judgement in the correct way and with the appropriate values in mind. Alongside this we need to cultivate an environment in our schools where students can feel ok to make mistakes. If we have a fear of getting something wrong we will be reluctant to try anything new, hence no creativity.

Skills are essential for our students. But they also need to know how to apply them in a creative manner.