Yesterday was an incredible day! I got to meet and spend time with three of my biggest educational inspirations: Helen Chapman, Laurel Fynes, and Julie May. Through blog posts and tweets, these three have taught me so much about the Reggio approach, the value of play-based and inquiry learning, and the remarkable capabilities of even our youngest learners. While there is so much that I could blog about from yesterday, our visit made me realize something that I’ve never really thought about before: the benefits of playing/tinkering/creating are not just for kids.

It was just after arriving at Helen’s house yesterday, that I started playing a game of Ultimate Tic-Tac-Toe with her six-year-old daughter. Wow does this game get you thinking! While playing, I could help but make the links between this game and spatial awareness and patterning skills.

Thanks Helen for the photograph of our Ultimate Tic-Tac-Toe Board.

During our game time, Laurel happened to make this comment — originally Plato’s words — which Helen reminded me of this morning:

Helen created this in Word Swag/Fragment.

In many ways, this quotation was put to the test yesterday, as we continued to play and tinker. After finishing this Ultimate Tic-Tac-Toe Game, Helen’s younger daughter showed me how to play Fox and Hounds. This game has the fox trying to move across the chess board as the hounds try to block its way. The fox can move in both directions though, and the hounds can only move forwards. Again, thinking and spatial awareness skills are required, as both the fox and hounds strategize to win.

Helen surprised us by purchasing enough blank game boards for each of us to create our own Fox and Hound Game. She even drew out a sketch to help with determining the correct measurements to use. With a table full of loose parts and art supplies, we got immersed in playing/tinkering/creating.

Thanks Helen for this photograph of your table of supplies.

While we did spend some time just talking, it’s amazing how much more we learned about each other and how the conversation continued to flow, as we played. It was even interesting to see our approaches to the same problem. We all wanted to create one of these game boards, but what supplies would we use? How would we attach them to the board?

• Helen decided to use the coloured tape with a backing, so that she could measure and cut the tiles, and then peel them off to put on the board. She figured out that the tape was 2 inches wide, but the tiles needed to be 1 inch. No problem! She just divided the amount in half, and cut the tape through the middle. There was some extra room around the outside of the board, but a little extra tape (this time a different colour) made a lovely border.
• Julie went with a similar approach. She wasn’t sure that her measurements were quite as accurate, but she started in the middle to affix the tiles, and then checked and measured, and checked again, to make a pretty border for her board as well.
• Laurel used ribbon to map out a board to start. When she got a feel for what she wanted her board to look like, she used a ruler and a pencil to accurately draw each of the squares. Then she used markers to colour in the squares, creating a final board much like a real chess board.
• I was not as accurate or patient as my friends. Instead of waiting for the ruler, I took the tape and measured the full length of one side of the board, and then I doubled this to get enough tape for the whole board … and maybe a little extra. I then folded the tape through the middle because I knew that I needed 1 inch tiles instead of 2 inch ones. At this point, I asked Helen for one of her tiles, marked off the size of it on the back of my tape, and then folded the tape back and forth so that the whole row was 1 inch squares. I cut along the lines — or kind of close to them — to create my tiles. Helen helped me find the middle of my board, with the help of a ruler, but I must have made a mistake somewhere, for despite starting in the middle to affix the tiles, my borders along the outside were not the same size. I’m going to call this board, Fox And Hound-ish. 🙂 It’s a good reminder of why standard measurement may reign supreme. 🙂

My Fox And Hound Game Board

The amount of math, thinking, and problem solving displayed and explicitly discussed during this creation time was amazing. The truth is that I’m not much a tinkerer. While Helen has rooms full of supplies to create and experiment with, I’ve never even thought of spending time at home doing this. Now I’m starting to wonder the value in adults playing/tinkering/creating more.

Look what Helen created just after I left! Thanks for tweeting this out, Laurel!

I have visions now of a Maker Staff Meeting. Imagine a set-up much like Helen’s house. Would the ability to make things, take them apart, and add light or sound help inspire educators to see what else is possible in the classroom? Coding could even be a component of this. As we play, we can also discuss the curriculum links and the links to learning already happening in the classroom. I wonder what we might bring back and try out with our students. 

I’m thinking now of Paul Hatala‘s introduction to our Board’s recent Summer Institute Technology session. He spoke about the roll out of the Board’s Transforming Learning Everywhere initiative, and the importance of putting iPads in the hands of the teachers first. They need to see what’s possible and feel comfortable with the technology before using these devices with students. Maybe the same is also true for playing and tinkering. Do we need to engage in this time first to see the value for our kids? How might this change our practices? What do you think? Many thanks to Helen, Laurel, and Julie for giving me an opportunity to think, play, tinker, create, and learn!

Aviva

Since Valerie Bennett introduced me to Dr. Ross Greene’s ideas in June, I’ve been inspired to make changes to my practices. I’ve been even further inspired after reading Greene’s book, Lost At School, and listening to him speak last week. I see such tremendous value in really listening to students, and working collaboratively with them to solve problems. I’ve connected so much with Greene’s ideas that I guess I expected others to make the same shift in thinking when they heard them, but I realized that things don’t always go as we expect. Interactions recently with some friends really have me thinking, and I share this dialogue below because I’d curious to hear your views.

__________________________________________________________________

Aviva: Tells the others about Dr. Greene’s approach by sharing one of the examples in the book.

Person A: I sometimes try to find out what the student’s thinking.

Aviva: That’s great!

Person A: Then I tell them what they need to do. Or, I guess, sometimes I give them a choice of what to do.

Aviva: Do you ever work with the student to develop a solution? One that both of you agree on?

Person B: Now the student gets to decide what we do?

Aviva: It’s not about the student deciding. What about coming to a solution together? One that could work for everybody?

Person B: What about the real world? It’s like inquiry. Now the students make all of the choices?

Aviva: What do you mean by “the real world?”

Person B: I hear from my friend that students aren’t as responsible anymore. They don’t take their responsibilities seriously. They cancel appointments. They don’t show up on time. They do what works for them.

Aviva: Wouldn’t Greene’s approach, just like inquiry, teach more responsibility? Wouldn’t it help students take a little more ownership over problem solving and their own learning?

Person B: I’m not sure. What about when they grow up and get a job? Don’t they need to learn to listen to others?

Aviva: What about learning to be critical thinkers? What about learning to collaborate (work together)? Even with Greene’s approach, students need to listen to the adults, but also work with them. Aren’t these skills we need?

__________________________________________________________________

Our conversation continued from here, as we spoke more about Greene’s approach and about inquiry. It was a very good discussion that showed the two different sides of a couple of timely issues in education. This discussion left me with the following thoughts:

• We all want what’s best for kids. We have varying views on what this “best” may be. Could these “best approaches” vary depending on our students and their needs? Do they need a combination of our different approaches? How do we decide?
• As educators, we’re used to hearing, “You’re already doing something similar.” This is then followed by the small changes that we need to make. Greene’s approach isn’t about small changes. It’s a whole different way of how we solve problems. I think in many ways, inquiry is also about big changes in practice. When change is hard, how do we become comfortable with some big, uncomfortable changes? How do we know that they’re the best ones to make?
• It’s hard not to look ahead to the future. We may be teaching the students now — in my case when they’re very young — but we still hear about what they need when they’re older. Will these needs change? What’s the “real world” that we need to be concerned about, and are we preparing students for it? 
• I totally agree that “listening skills” are important. In fact, my new “one word” goal for this school year is listening. If we want students to listen to us though, do we also need to listen more to them? 

What do you think? I would love to hear your responses to this shared dialogue as I continue to think about problem solving, teaching, and learning!

Aviva

For the past couple of weeks, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about some edu-jargon:

• Guide On The Side vs. Sage On The Stage.

I’m going to admit that these terms often make me laugh. I think that we’ve all become so immersed in terminology in our schools that we can’t help but use the words. I definitely I do. I wish though that I spent more time thinking about these terms instead of just using them. This particular example of edu-jargon seems to come with this sense of the “right approach” versus the “wrong approach”: we need to avoid being the sage, and instead, be the guide. While in theory, I embrace this philosophy, I wonder if in practice, it’s a lot more difficult than that. 

I think of the classroom.

• Every time that we meet with the full class, are we being the sage? Do we ever have to meet with the full class? How do we decide? How do we get more student talk, and less teacher talk, even during full class meetings?
• If we just meet with a small group, are we being the guide? What if we’re still directing the conversation? How do we again get kids talking more?
• What if we’re observing? Does being a guide count as watching, thinking, and planning ahead for future learning? Can we guide learning even without talking?
• How do we ensure that we actually guide and not just stay on the side? Are there times when it’s okay to be off at a desk or doing planning? Is it too easy to fall into this habit if we’re not “teaching” in the typical sense? Does everybody know what he/she can be doing if not teaching at the front of the room? I wonder if certain grades and/or individuals are more comfortable with this guide on the side approach than others, and if so, how can we change this? Should we?

I have a secret to share. For the past couple of years especially, my administrators have visited my classroom regularly. They visit all classrooms. They might not come in every day, but usually at least once a week. Their visit may just be for a minute, but it happens. After they come in, I always think, what was I doing when they were there? What were my students doing? Is there a better way that we could have been spending our time? Maybe the timing was such that they always came in when we were sitting on the carpet, but if so, I can’t help but wonder, are we spending too much time doing this?

Here’s what I want my administrators, and other visitors, to see and hear when they come into our classroom:

• Students talking.
• Students working together.
• Students working independently.
• Students creating.
• Students solving problems.
• Students demonstrating skills in meaningful and purposeful ways.
• Students sharing their thinking, learning, and future goals in ways that work for them.
• Students doing different things and in different ways.
• Students persevering through challenging tasks.
• Students having choices, and students making these choices.
• Students thinking … and being willing to share their thinking.
• And me observing, documenting, playing, and interacting with small groups and individual students.

If I always kept these thoughts in mind, I wonder if they would change the classroom dynamic. Seeing the ideas in this list, I think that I more often hope to be a “guide.” I wonder how often I actually am. As I work on “listening” more this year, I really hope to watch more, think more, question better, and talk less. Maybe my new teaching experiences will also help me figure out some answers to my many guide/sage questions. What do you think?

Aviva