Making learning Visible (John Hattie)

Auckland University Professor John Hattie has recently authored a study, based on research into 83 million students, studying effective teachers around the world and has come up with some reassuring results for creative teachers. It's all about trusting relationships and 'oodles of feedback'. Note - it is not about national testing, our government's highly unoriginal plan.

Click here for latest blog

A link For more undated thinking about Hattie


It seems hard to avoid the brief press releases of Auckland University Professor John Hattie's research in our newspapers. It is a shame that the papers haven't done more in depth research of their own into Hattie's findings.

Most teachers by now will know the main findings of Hattie's research from his previous papers and creative teachers will be reassured that his research backs up intuitive ideas gained from their experience. For such teachers Hattie's findings will be obvious and common sense; unfortunately common sense is not so common! A quick glance through Hattie's book provides definitive evidence of what works and what doesn't.

What doesn't 'work' includes class sizes,homework and school type and he doesn't even mention our current governments misguided focus on national testing.

I have my doubts about the importance of school type but as he states in his book ' this is not a book about what cannot be influenced in schools.... critical dimensions about class, poverty... are not included.. not because they are unimportant, indeed they may be more important than many of the influences discussed in this book. It is just that I have not included these topics in my orbit'.

He also says that his book is not about qualitative studies. It only includes studies that were based on statistics. Thankfully his finding give support to the intuitive ideas gained by creative teachers through their lived experience. Hattie does say his message is a positive one for teachers and that 'many teachers already think in the way the book argues'.

Although I appreciate his exclusion of the socio -economic dimensions the effect of the environment students students come from has to faced up to. If not faced up to it places a impossible responsibility on schools and teachers in such areas.

Hattie's research aslo includes little criticism of the archaic industrial aged structures of secondary schools which work against many of the relationship issues he found to be most important. Although this is understandable, in light of Hattie's study, it is a also a shame - a bit like patching up a sinking ship. In previous paper he has written that his research would assist 'restoring faith in the public school system'. Elsewhere he mentions that effective practices are more often to be seen in primary schools. If out of date school structures are not faced up his effective teaching findings could well be simply cosmetic - getting better at a bad job. And, indeed, Hattie's development of better testing in literacy and numeracy has had the effect of schools focusing on literacy and numeracy and diverting valuable teachers energy away from other equally important areas. Such thoughts would seem to place Hattie as an educational conservative unlike future orientated thinkers such as Guy Claxton, David Perkins, Howard Gardner, Robert Fried and Elliott Eisner etc, and creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson.

To his credit he quotes that, for all the reforms, in many respects some aspects of education are 'hardly different than 200 years ago' and that his 'meta analysis' of research provides the potential to make real changes as its conclusions are 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

The big challenge of Hattie's findings, if implemented, would mean 'a change in the conception of being a teacher...it necessitates a different way of interacting and respecting students'. This brings us back to the writings of Guy Claxton and our current curriculum's emphasis on 'key competences'.

Hattie's meta analysis ( a synthesis of 50000 previous studies) found that overwhelmingly student teacher interaction came out on top.

Hattie's book is about the power of directed teaching, focusing on 'what happens next' through feedback and monitoring. This is an approach that also informs the teacher about the success or failure of their teaching; making learning for both teacher and student 'visible'.

Number one is teaching where the students know exactly how well they're doing and can articulate this, and what they need to know, to their teacher. Hattie says that teachers should ask themselves, "how many of the kids in your classroom are prepare to say, in front of class, 'we need help', we don't know what's going on', or ' what have you learned?" This sort of trust, he says, is rare.

The most effective strategy of all is giving regular feedback and fostering an atmosphere of trust - these are qualities within the reach of every teacher to improve on.

I have to agree with the head of the secondary teachers union who has said , in response to Hattie's finding that, 'it is not rocket science' but I disagree that it it would be common practice in our stressed secondary schools. Hattie, in his book, commends the work of University of Waikato's Russell Bishop study of the experiences of Maori students which asks for a considerable change of approach in teacher student relationships. It is however not 'rocket science' for those creative teachers, past and present, found in our primary schools.

I liked Hattie's reference to philosopher Carl Popper's 'three worlds' ( a favourite of the late National Art Adviser Gordon Tovey, mentor to creative teachers in the 50 and 60s). The first world of surface knowledge, the second of thinking skills ( 'key competencies'), and the third creating deep concepts about what is worth learning. Tovey called the 'third world' the creative products resulting from learning. It places 'key competencies' in perspective for me.

Hattie writes that the major source of student variance lies within 'the person who gently closes the door of the classroom door and performs the teaching act'. His research focuses on the difference between the 'expert' or 'excellent' teachers and the 'accomplished' or simply 'experienced'. I would prefer the use of the phase 'creative' rather than 'expert' because it is the 'artistry' of such teachers that make all the difference. Identifying and sharing such teachers quality teaching attributes is the focus of Hattie's research. 'While teachers', he says, 'have the power - few do damage, some maintain a status quo in growth of students achievement,and many are excellent'.We need to identify, esteem, and grow those who have powerful influences on student learning.'

Papers are available on the Internet which outline all Hattie's ealier findings but the top teaching influences are : feedback, instructional quality, direct instruction, remediation feedback, class environment and challenge of goals.

'Expert' (or 'creative') teachers, Hattie found, had real respect for their learners as people with ideas of their own. They are passionate about teaching and learning, able to present challenging learning tasks ensuring 'deep learning' ( able to be transferred) and show more emotionality about successes and failures in their work. They are able to make lessons their own, invite students to 'engage', integrating and combining new learning with students prior knowledge. Their expertise ('artistry') allows them to 'read' their classrooms and to be more responsive to learners.

Such creative teachers,Hattie writes, are very context bound and find it hard to think out of the specifics of their classroom. They are extremely flexible and opportunistic, improvising to take advantage of contingencies and new information as it arises. They are 'greater seekers and user of feedback'. Interestingly research indicated that such teachers did not have written lesson plans but all could easily describe mental plans for their lessons. They were able to work intuitively and focus their energy on the creative act. Creative teachers indeed!

Interestingly it was pedagogical knowledge ( 'the art of teaching') rather than content knowledge that distinguished the 'expert' teachers.

The three things that separated 'expert' from 'experienced' teachers were: the degree of challenge presented, depth of student processing of knowledge and representation of what was worth finding out about, and ongoing monitoring and feedback.

Five areas covered in Hattie's latest book are;

Students to develop: a 'positive learning disposition' and to be 'open' to new learning. They need to develop 'engagement' with learning goals so as to become 'turned on' so as to gain worthwhile learning. Claxton's 'learnacy' or the NZ Curriculum's 'key competencies'.

Homes to be helped develop 'positive parental expectations and aspirations' as 'positive parent alignment' with school is vital.

Schools to provide a positive , optimistic, invitational, trusting and safe learning climate. One that welcomes student errors and develops positive peer influences; that gives both teachers and learner's respect as learners.

Teachers who are seen by their students as quality teachers. Who provide clarity of expectations and a belief that all can learn. Teachers who are 'open' to new ideas, who develop positive learning climate, and who value the importance of student effort to improve.

A curriculum that is explicit to learners and that provides challenging in depth experiences.

Hattie's work probably deserves greater consideration than I have given it as it is important. If teachers are to make the difference Hattie believes is possible then we need more than 'press releases'.


Hattie's on going research has identified teacher effectiveness ( or creativity) 'beyond doubt' and faces up to the fact that not all teachers are equal.

If the ideas Hattie has identified are known by all teachers then all our students could do far better than is currently expected.

Applying such ideas is preferable to wasting teacher time and energy on the failed concept national testing.

Developing talent in young people?

Benjamin Bloom is well known to teachers for his taxonomy of questioning. In the late 80s Bloom wrote a book called 'Developing Talent in Young People'. Bloom was interested in what contributed to the greatness of talented individuals and what role did schools play in their success


I have always been curious about the early life of talented individuals so I was interested to access a copy of an article written on the subject by Benjamin Bloom published in 1985. I have  wondered what creative individuals like NZ filmmaker Peter Jackson would've been like at school and what kind of school would such creative individuals invent if they were given the challenge? One film maker George Lucas has done this.

In the future schools will need to focus on developing the talents of all students rather than academic success for those students who are best suited to the current education. This is the position of creative expert Sir Ken Robinson. Howard Gardner is obviously a key figure in defining the range of multiple intelligences or talents students have.

An emphasis on a personalised talent based eduction would dramatically transform education and would result in less students leaving feeling failures, or worse still alienated, as at present.

Bloom studied 120 individuals who, before the age of 35, had demonstrated the highest level of accomplishment in artistic, psychomotor ( physical) and cognitive fields.

He was interested in; what was the role of the home, teachers, and schools; and were such people initially so rare and possibly a special type or were they largely a product of special circumstances; and what were the patterns of development found in each field? Bloom was interested in their learning and the relationship with schools

The first thing that was noted was that the majority of individuals became involved at a relatively early age, usually before the age of 12.

In the majority of cases one or more of the parents had a personal interest in the in the talent area and gave the individual great support and encouragement. Some of the parents were above average in in the talent area but most parents exemplified some of the special qualities and lifestyle and provided role models for the young learner. Sometimes the interests were so strong all members of the family were expected to participate.Small signs of interest were encouraged and rewarded. Bloom makes the comparison to the process where very young people learn their mother tongue, it begins at the optimal time is and strengthened through natural interaction. The families involved take for granted that the children will learn their talent and language.

The curriculum of the home consists of a special language, a set of expected behaviours, and a set of values or a lifestyle.For the most part children are taught and learned on a schedule in variety of ways and to a standard that seem to someone in the family to be appropriate. Quite frequently early learning exploratory and very much like play.

In contrast much of school learning is highly formalized even in the early grades ( note , this refers to American education of the era). Teachers follow curriculums, learning is seen as as serious task and is differentiated from play. School programmes are determined by the age of the child and, while there may be some adjustment made for individuals, normally each individual is instructed as a member of a group with some notion that all get nearly equal treatment. A child who deviates may be given special help but this is normally restricted for those doing poorly. At home each learner is treated as unique. Bloom makes the point that only in small one class rural schools would a similar situation be seen.

For the talented individual all of the instruction is received on a one to one basis. Many talented individuals receive regular individualized private lessons. In such setting the 'teacher' works with each individual, diagnosing needs and providing corrective feedback, and sets practice to be supervised at home. The development of each individual was seen as unique; the child's learning was seen as central and involved continual adjustment. Standards set by the teachers were always tailored to the specific needs of the learner.

In contrast instruction at school emphasizes group learning with students in ability groups.The group is taught as whole or in sub groups. There is a cycle of teacher explanation and demonstrations and student responses and practice with minimal adjustments made for individuals. Because of differences in ability some students are expected to better at the same set tasks. As a result some students develop a positive view of their progress while others develop a sense of inadequacy. When home and school work together greater progress is made but when home and school relationships are poor progress suffers.

At home talent development emphasizes individual progress relative to the learner with parents following up practice set by the 'teacher'. The home supports the 'teacher' by monitoring practice and giving encouragement especially in the early years.

Learners with talents are are spurred on by regular recitals, concerts, sports events, competitions etc where the child's special capabilities are displayed publicly. These real periodic events provide important benchmarks of the child's progress and also provide opportunities for individual to exchange experiences with other outstanding peers even if they did not win. In schools there are few such public events to reward performances.

Bloom admits that home school comparison in regard to talent development could be seen as unfair. School provides a general education for all while talent development focuses on the individual in a particular field. Bloom however believes that that much may be gained by noting major differences in the process and the results. For talented individuals schooling was rarely seen as central to their lives but, at the same time, talented individual spent up to 15 to 25 hours a week practicing. They also lived and breathed their particular talent. Their aspirations for the future in their talent ruled much of their lives. They were willing to put in the effort, hard work, and make sacrifices to achieve; everything else was done in moderation.

In contrast, at school, students are expected to do everything well according to timetabled instruction, and this limits the sense of engagement provided to those who pursue talents out of school. The school does not permit students to become deeply involved in any one part of the curriculum and indeed students are expected to follow courses and to achieve on a narrow range of learning areas.

Schooling, writes Bloom, provides an assembly line with each student and teacher concentrating on only a particular part of the educational assembly line. Unlike the talented individuals unique and integrated learning experience students at school receive their learning in isolated tasks. Bloom writes that this provides a sort of tunnel vision which lack integrative meaning.

Bloom concludes his article by describing the relationships between talented individual and their high schools. Some students were 'A' students, others barely met graduation requirements, while some rushed to to get away from unhappy circumstances.

Three possible scenarios were discovered.

For one group of the individuals Bloom studied talent development and school were almost two separate spheres of their life. Both made great demands but with minor adjustments students were able to meet both sets of demands. They worked on their talents before or after school. Whatever, schools did little to assist in their talent development and their talents were seldom discussed at school.

For a second group school experiences were a negative influence in their talent development. Schooling was something to be suffered and they were frequently urged to pay more attention to what the school expected of them. These students were outsiders and were often labeled by other students as different.

For a third group Bloom found that some schools were more encouraging and such schools became a major source of support, encouragement, motivation and reward for the development of the talent. The school experience expanded the individuals interest and made the development of their talent real and important. Many of the students recalled unusual and exciting teachers whose enthusiasm and encouragement was contagious. Such teachers went out of their way to support their talented students. They were helped to meet peers with similar interests and involved in events to celebrate and give recognition to their particular talents. Such schools provided, writes Bloom, 'a shelter in a world where few people shared their interest and the intensity of their involvement.'

Concluding Bloom believes teachers ought to ponder the differences been talent development and school learning he has uncovered. Teachers, he says, might like to think about whether their schools provide the conditions essential to fulfil the realization of all their students potential; and to think about what makes teaching and learning most effective and why is that some individuals become committed to learning while others become distracted?

He reports of very few schools where talent development and schooling enhanced each other.

He concludes with the observation that, after age 12, the talented students students spent as much time on their talent field each week as their average peer spent watching television.

Time to put Bloom's research into action!

Educating for Creativity

If you have never heard Sir Ken Robinson's short video check him out on google. Or visit his site Or visit previous blogs.

I came across an interview with creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson and couldn't resist listening to it as his 'voice' represents what education could be if it could escape from its 19th century straight jacket. His writings and presentations are all about the need to move us from an academic educational system, created to 'serve' the now defunct industrial revolution, to an interdisciplinary structure more suited to today's globally networked knowledge workers.

Considering the challenges we face it would seem a sensible idea.

Sir Ken big concern is that education ought to be all about developing the whole child's individual natural abilities, talents and uniqueness. He believes it does not do this at present and that, in many cases, 'it divorces people from their natural talent'.

He believes that creativity has been leached from the educational process. Education , he says, ought to be about enabling people to have life which has meaning and purpose for each student and also to allow them to contribute to their communities.

Most countries provides a very narrow form of education and it's getting narrower. This, he says, is not an argument against literacy maths, or science . These are very important even if, he says, schools do not teach them 'courageously', but the current emphasis pushes out other equally important disciplines.

The first thing Sir Ken would want to see is a more broadly based curriculum. This would include maths and technology, and so, on but you would do them in different ways. He would like more emphasis on project work, on discovery, but he would also like more art, music, dance and theatre. 'You'd be doing', he continues, 'interdisciplinary sessions, where you would be learning maths through theatre; you would be using maths as a way of enhancing learning and dance for example. So it would be a much more dynamic curriculum'.

'Secondly, it would be much more tailored, as you are getting older, to your particular interests, because people have very different talents and abilities.' In the traditional school setting many people are weaned away from the very talents that excite them.'I am sure', he says, people have had the experience of being pushed away from doing certain things like art or music because of a belief that these things aren't very useful for getting a job'. He makes the point that art today, for example, is very important with the current emphasis on industrial design, product innovation and the wide range of jobs in the creative industries.

Some things, he says, now taken for granted need to be challenged for example dividing the curriculum up and separating students by age, as this is often where the problem lies. He talks about students in lower grades who can outperform people several grades ahead and that he would like to see much more inter age learning. And he would like to see more adults involved in learning.


The problem education faces stems from systems invented in the 18th and 19th centuries to meet the needs of an industrial economy and, in many ways, were based on principles of industrialisation. They are all about a linear form of planning like a production line. It is, he continues, 'about conformity, about educating people in batches'. These intellectually impoverished schools, he believes, 'need to be revitalized'.

That schools ought to reflect today's personalised interconnected knowledge economy ought to be obvious to anyone involved in education. It is the schools that are the slow learners!

Sir Ken reflects that students beginning primary/elementary schooling today would be retiring about 2070 and that he doesn't know anybody who has the faintest idea of what the world will be like in 2010 let alone 2070. He compares this to when he was growing up in the 1950s and 60s when there was a reasonable expectation of what your working life might be like. About 80% of the work force were in manual work, a minority doing office work and a few eccentric people would go off and do creative work. And it was a reasonable expectation that if you got a job you'd have it as long as you needed it.

Things have dramatically changed but school remain the same. Good if only it was 1960!

There is no going back to basis unless, Sir Ken says, it means a more accurate sense of human capacity based on developing the talents of all learners. It is entirely possible to do this, he says, 'the best way to to prepare our kids for the future is to have them firing on all cylinders.To really know what they're good at and be confident they can do that'.

The two things that will help anyone develop their creative capacity, Sir Ken believes, are 'habits and habitats'.

By habits he means the routines we follow during the course of our daily lives; the more we do the same things, the more we think the same way. One way to develop creativity is do things differently to stimulate your imagination; to do things you wouldn't normally do. We need to open our minds to new possibilities and new experiences and do things we haven't done before because often being creative is finding a new 'medium'. When people are in their 'element' they love the things they do. Discovering each learners element has to be a priority for schools.

The second is our habitats. The environment we live and work in, the way we configure our buiding, effects who we relate to and in turn has a huge effect on how we think and how well we think. Redesigning our physical spaces redesigns, in turn, our physical reationships and can have a huge liberating effect on your whole creativity, he says.

It is a shame that schools, secondary schools in particular, have such fixed routines that ensure their students receive an outdated fragmented view of learning and in the process that deaden the human spirit.

Unless schools can break such counter productive habits and habitats they will remain educating their students for the wrong century - as we enter a new creative era this would be as disastrous as ignoring global warming, Sir Ken believes.

Currently most governments , according to to Sir Ken,' seem recklessly bent on making the situation worse with their imposed national reform programmes'. What governments need to do,he believes, is to create the conditions to allow school to develop the creative capacities of all their learners rather than enshrining literacy and numeracy at the neglect of other equally important things.

All we need is are governments that realize we need to redesign our schools to equip all students for the challenges of the 21stc.

Perhaps this is asking too much?

On Knowing - Jerome Bruner

My tattered and much read copy of Jerome Bruner's stimulating book of essays, compiled in 1965, gives expression to the 'creative cunning of the left hand' and outlines the conditions to develop creativity - the 'art' of knowing and discovering. Every time I read it my understanding deepens - this deepening of consciousness through education is the theme of the book. Some essays are still beyond me.

The themes Jerome Bruner covers in his book concern the process of knowing, how knowing is shaped and how it in turn gives form to language science, literature and art. The symbolism of the left hand is that of the dreamer - the right that of the practical doer.The areas of hunches and intuition, Bruner writes, has been all too often overwhelmed by an 'imposed fetish of objectivity'...'The lock step of learning theory in this country has been broken, though it is still the standard village dance'. Today we still have those ( usually politicians) who wish to test for learning ignoring, according to Bruner, that 'it is difficult to catch and record, no less understand, the swift flight of man's mind operating at its best.'

'There is something antic about creating, although the enterprise be serious', he writes.

Creativity Bruner defines is 'an act that produces effective surprise' although surprise, he says, is not easily defined, and once expressed often have a quality of obviousness about them ; representing connections that before were unsuspected.

Conditions for creativity require that the learner stand back from reality and to be 'prepared to take his journey without maps' driven by a deep need, or passion, to understand something. The 'wild flood of ideas' need to be tamed, and in the process, the thing being created takes over and compels the learner to finish. The learner, Bruner writes, is 'dominated' to complete the task.

The heart of creativity ,Bruner writes, are the questions, 'Who am I , where do I belong, and of what am I capable?' And, quoting William James, he writes, 'How do I know what I am until I feel what I do? This is why action is required to develop a positive identity; we 'either create or stagnate'. As William James says, 'we are remoulded constantly by experience', or as Bruner writes, there is 'a quest for identity'; an 'increased demand for significance in life'.

Bruner makes many references to the writings of John Dewey. Education is a process that cannot be separated from what it is that one seeks to teach. 'It is' Bruner writes, ' the study of the nature of knowing'. Education must be about providing the opportunities to discover the 'special power' of whatever one chooses to teach - art , science , music, maths or poetry.

Learner are attracted, through their curiosity, to begin the 'knowing process'. Teachers, Bruner advises, ought to 'practice the art of intellectual temptation'.

Personal excellence is what a learner discovers for himself. It comes from the teachers 'faith in permitting the student to put things together for himself'. But, says Bruner, discovery, like surprise, favours the well prepared mind'.'Discovery whether by a schoolboy...or by a scientist cultivating the growing edge of his field' is a means of transformation in a way that one is enabled to go beyond the evidence.

Preparing this searching 'mind' is the role of the learning culture the teacher creates. In the right climate students 'are armed with the expectancy' and persistence to find patterns. The students are 'learning how to go about the very task of learning'. This is in contrast to to those students who are 'seekers after the right way' able only to 'give back what is expected of them'. There is a big difference 'between learning about and discovering'.The behaviour that leads to discovery is not random - it is 'directed, selective and persistent'. Such learners experience success and failure as information - 'on the right track or on the wrong one.' Success delivers growing confidence and mastery - what Bruner calls the 'art of inquiry'; 'inquiry as a way of life'.

This disposition to inquire is gained in the process of doing something that 'smells right'. 'It is my hunch' says Bruner, 'that it is only through the effort of discovery that one learns the working heuristics of discovery; the more one has practice, the more likely one ( develops)... a style of problem solving or inquiry that serves for any kind of task'. Practice in figuring things out can only be gained by 'engaging in inquiry'.


Students who can mediate their own learning, and commit such learning to memory, are most successful when the learning resonates with their own interests.Such students , by reflecting on their experiences learn to see patterns. 'Learning to simplify', says Bruner, 'is to climb on your own shoulders to be able to look down at what you have just done - and then to represent it to yourself.'

The good teacher is one who provide opportunities that 'cry for representation'. ' How can I know what I think until I represent what I do'. Students, Bruner recommends, ought to be encourage 'a going back over experiences, a listening to oneself'. And, continues, that the 'art of teaching' is to encourage such reflective behaviour so as to help students make sense of any experience so as to avoid mechanical learning.By imposing premature formalism we prevent the child from realizing the own learning and run the risk of turning students off learning.

All this Bruner says argues for a 'spiral curriculum' where 'ideas can be revisited later with greater precision and power until students achieve the reward of mastery'.'Any subject can be taught to anybody pf any age in some form that is honest' Bruner had written earlier.

Bruner argues for depth over coverage and that content ought to be selected by 'whether is is worth knowing based on whether the knowledge gives a sense of delight and whether it bestows intellectual travel beyond the information given'.'Useful knowledge', he says, 'will look after itself' and argues that schools should 'focus on delight and travel' and that 'we should opt for depth and continuity in our teaching'. Learning that travels should give the learner 'the sense of experiencing of going from a primitive and weak grasp of some subject..(to a ) more refined and powerful grasp.. ( so the learner) can see how far he has come and by what means'. And where to next.

Delight, he says, comes from the pleasure of recognising links, or connections, to previous learning particularly of the major themes that underpin all human learning.

Bruner agrees with John Dewey who saw education a a 'process of living and not a preparation for future living'...' the true centre is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child's own social activities'. Learning, according to Dewey , ought to be active not passive. Dewey had great faith not only in the individuals capacity to grow but in society's capacity to shape man in its own best image. Dewey was writing in the 1890s - a time of sterility and rigidity in formal schooling.

Bruner reminds us that a 'excess of virtue is vice' as Dewey was unfortunately misinterpreted by his followers.Education has not only transmit the knowledge and values of the culture but also must also seek to develop the 'individuals capacity to go beyond the cultural ways .. to innovate..to create'. 'Each man' , writes Bruner, 'must be his own artist, his own scientist, his own historian, his own navigator'.

This paradox provides school with a creative tension to this day; 'one size fits all' in contrast to the ideals of 'personalised learning. 'Education' Bruner writes,' must, then, be not only a process that transmits culture but one that provides alternative views of the world and strengthens the will to explore them'. According to Dewey, education must begin with 'insights into the child's capacities, experiences, interests, habits' 'It is sentimentalism', says Bruner , to restrict learning to children's interests. Interests, he says, can be created and stimulated and provoked.

Schools are special communities where students are challenged 'leap into new and unimagined realms of experience' so as to 'open new perspectives'.

The 'yeast of education', writes Bruner, is the idea of excellence, and that it comprises as many forms as there are individuals'. 'The school', he continues, 'must have as one of its principle functions the nurturing of images of excellence'. Each subject areas provides organizing concepts to provide opportunities to develop excellence. But, he reminds us, teachers must ensure students grasp connections between subjects to develop the 'unity of learning'.

What should be taught turns our to be what is worth knowing, he writes and his suggestions echo the strands, or 'big ideas' of our current Learning Areas. Whatever is introduced needs to include the inquiry tools essential to the unlocking any new experience and to 'develop the informed powers of mind and a sense of potency in action'.

The goal of eduction is both disciplined understanding, and the process of learning to tackle confusion ; both product and process. If students are to have a general idea of how and where thing fit the first round of experience should be relate to the reality of the child life. 'In as far as possible , a method of instruction should have the objective of leading the child to discover for himself' The virtue of such an approach is that the 'child will make what he learns his own' and it also provides the 'reward of the power of disciplined inquiry'

'There is no difference in kind between the man at the frontier and the young student at his own frontier, each attempting too understand.Let the education process be life itself as fully as we can make it ' Bruner writes.

Bruner's book is a challenge to us all see students as 'knowers'. As we face up to a range of interconnected problems to sustain the very world we live in. We need an education system designed to develop the creativity and learning power of all students; individuals who 'feel they are living at the full limit of what is possible'.

Our current school system has a long way to go to developing the creative potential of all students so as to achieve Bruner's vision.

Some cool quotes.

Quote from Goethe.

All too often ( well in New Zealand anyway) well intentioned teachers provide so much guidance ( or 'scaffolding'), and define too closely the criteria, that the resulting work shows impressive consistency, even quality, but misses out on creativity. Teachers would be well advised to heed Goethe's advice.

Today my daughter, who is currently working in the UK, send me a handful of quotes she copied from a friends book that she thought I would enjoy.

'All you have to do educate a child is leave them alone and teach them to read! The rest is brainwashing' Ellen Gilecrist

I wish it were so easy. The way reading is all too often taught could itself be seen as 'brainwashing' by emphasizing literacy above other equally important ways of gaining and expressing meaning. A lot of schooling is 'brainwashing' - educating the brain by an academic approach that is all but irrelevant for many students.

'Learning is the only thing the mind never exhausts, never fears,and never regrets'. Leonardo da Vinci.

Coming from a person who was excluded from from schooling, because of the circumstances of his birth, it is pertinent today when so many who go to school leave with their desire to learn in tatters. Da Vinci's curriculum was based on an intense curiosity, the ability to make use of all his senses, and drawing and describing what he observed; an artist and a scientist. Modern education would be well advised to follow this creative de-schooler!

'Sixty years ago I knew everything; now I know nothing.Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance'. Will Durant

All real learners discover new ideas at the very edge of their competence - the edge of ignorance. They understand that as they learn there is always more to learn. Appreciating the role of ignorance in learning is an interesting idea. Teachers who teach with pre planned confidence are not really educators, helping students discover idea for themselves, but merely tellers.

'Education has produced a vast population able to read but unable distinguish what is worth reading'. G M Trevelyan

This brings us back to the first quote.

It is purpose - something yet to discover, that drives all learning, and this includes reading.

And it is personal purpose that is missing in our schools today.

If you want some more quotes.

Merry Christmas

 
















Couldn't resist.

Best wishes

 
Kia ora
I hope you all have a great Christmas and New Year where ever in the World you are. Check the map on the site to see who visits.
I am away for a few days so I am taking a short break.
Be great to hear from some of you if you have time. I love feedback.
Ka kite ano
Bruce

Testing our way into the 19th C!

Those with their minds firmly fixed in a patronising, mechanistic, or technocratic approach, always see measurement as the ultimate way of guaranteeing progress.Like any simple solution to a complex problem it is wrong -and has been proved so. Standard based teaching was the approach of education in Victorian times - each class was called a standard ( standard one etc) that you progressed to if you passed the test. In the early days, in the UK, teachers were paid by results their students gained in the tests. Maybe that is next on our 'new' governments agenda?


The National Government has rushed through its National Testing Legislation.According to the Prime Minister ' all students will face testing against national standards in literacy and numeracy from next year'.

What exactly this populist and reactionary legislation means in action will be discovered next year. It is hard to believe that this was seen as a priority when the real issue is to equip students with the dispositions they will need thrive in an uncertain and potentially exciting future. Not that literacy and numeracy aren't important - they are - but they are best seen as vital 'foundation skills' to be in place for students to use to further their learning and not an end in themselves. The new Government made no reference to the liberating intent of the 2007 curriculum as they head back to the past.

And it is not to say that primary schools do not currently test their students. Far from it. As Kelvin Smythe says ,' schools are already assessed up to the gunwales...the last thing they need is more pressure from the Review Office for even more assessment'. National Party policy statements say that new tests won't be required as teachers already use AsTTle and PAT etc but they will be establishing benchmarks setting out minimum skills. This might not be such a concern as many school already do this and, if it were simplified, it might cut out the need for so many tests. Some of the tests schools are 'encouraged' to use , according to Kelvin Smythe, are overblown providing lots of data and little information, and I agree with him.


We will have to wait and see.

In the meantime in the UK has shown that national testing, although providing initial improvements,are now plateauing and trending down. In the UK results are published in 'league table' ( without reference to decile rating) creating 'winner and loser' schools. Ironically punishing, in the process, the very students who make up the 'achievement tail'. And standardised tests always have an 'achievement tail!

The same situation occurs with President Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' ( NCLB) standardised testing.

Both in the UK and the USA teachers teach to the test aiming their attention to those students not quite making the grade to improve their graphs. Such a narrow approach, in both countries, has led to the undermining of creative teaching, less time spent on other important areas of the curriculum, all leading to shallow learning. UK educator Guy Claxton writes that a side product of measurable improved achievement results is creating anxiety in both students and their parents, let alone killing the creativity of teachers, and is resulting in students losing the joy of reading and maths. 'The assessment tail is wagging the dog', or as they say, 'you can't fatten a pig by measuring it'!

National testing comes with a cost.

Canadian educationist Michael Fullan believes New Zealand in coasting on past success ( Education Gazette Nov 08) and believes we need to focus on 'capacity building' ( the 'will and skill') of teachers before accountability so as to implement successful practices. Reflecting back to the literacy programmes before Tomorrow's Schools might indicate where we have gone wrong.

All the imposed 'best practice' literacy and numeracy programmes of the past decades has not shown the improvement promised. As well this emphasis has all but squeezed out inquiry learning and the creative arts. If anything literacy and numeracy needs to be 're framed' to ensure students have the information gathering and expressive skills to ensure students gain both deep understanding and the important key competencies, or future learning dispositions.

The worst effects of the imposition of this 'Big Brother' national testing ( by a Government that believes in freedom, initiative and individual enterprise) will be on the enthusiasm, morale and creativity of teachers. Such a testing regime will create conformist teaching - the very thing we don't want if we are to really face up to the 'achievement tail'.

Kelvin Squire the former president of the New Zealand Principal's Federation , is quoted by Kelvin Smthe, saying, ' We could be moving to Worst Evidence Stupidity.We know that punitive, high stakes testing doesn't work....I've travelled all over the world with the Principal's Federation and I have seen it doesn't work.I'd resist national testing, do civil disobedience, if I had to!'


In Australia the same testing agenda is being implemented and, according to a past Director General of Education Queensland Phil Cullen, this measurement obsessed hierarchy is destroying the purpose of true education. He quotes Alfie Kohn one of Americas most outspoken critic of testing. Kohn writes, ' A plague has been sweeping through schools wiping out the most innovative instruction and beating down some of the best teachers....ironically this plague has been released in the name of improving schools.Invoking such terms as "tougher standards" people with little understanding of how children learn have imposed a heavy handed, top down , test driven version of school reform that is lowering the quality of education in this country...Turning schools into giant test-prep centres, effectively closing off intellectual inquiry and undermining enthusiasm for learning ( and teaching).It has taken longer to realize that this is a ...political movement that must be opposed'.

Lester Flockton echoes thoughts in this blog in his article in the November Principal Magazine. He has expanded his views in an article in December's excellent Education Today magazine. He states that it is 'nonsensical and unfair to expect that schools alone should be accountable for the educational malaise'. He continues 'school are good for children but they cannot overcome deep deficits'. Lets not kid ourselves' he says.

These thoughts of Lester's about the wider responsibility of society to underachieving schools relates to ideas that Kelvin Squires has also written about. It is all to a easy to fix blame on school and then only to offer simplistic populist solutions.

What is required is broader bolder approach to education. Schools must play their part by providing opportunities for all students to reach their full potential. However there is no evidence that schools alone, no matter how good, can close worrying educational achievement gaps.

A broader school approach would not only focus on basic skills but also to develop the whole person including physical health, character, social development and non academic skills - the 'key competencies'.

A broader approach would also need to focus on the total environment the students come from, the importance of high quality early childhood, the encouraging of at least one parent to be able to look after children for the first three years with all the support possible, and developing integrated relationships between schools and other community organisations.

Testing just doesn't cut it!

Leadership for what?

Winston Churchill, as with any true leader, was able to deliver, through his oratory, a powerful story to provide his people hope of better things to come. Leadership is about creating powerful future images through myth and story - and it is rare commodity.


I am critical of leadership courses run for school principals for, so far, I have not been able to discern any new story, or powerful vision for the future, they have provided for those who might be followers. Considering those providing the information are at best timid leaders or, worse still academics, it is no wonder. It sounds like a case of , 'Stick to your seats and never go to sea and you will be rulers of the Queen's navy'. Such leaders will be as effective as the peace time generals who are equipped to fight previous centuries wars. In war time true creative leaders 'emerge' often to be dispensed with when peace breaks out.

Developing lists of 'best practices' will never be good enough when times demand new questions and answers that can only come from future, or 'next practices'. And politicians are no better. As Michael Fullan writes 'politicians always get it wrong' .Look , for example of the easy answer of national testing. Mind you Fullan has done quite well out of such simplistic initiatives - busy measuring the wrong things. As Guy Claxton writes, 'most far reaching ideas and changes come from the outside'; think of Nelson Mandela.

As social commentator Eric Hoffer wrote, 'In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists'. 'The status quo' , as some one said, 'is Latin for the mess we are in'.

The world as we used to know it, following 9/11 , the ongoing financial crisis, the worsening environmental problems, and any number of social issues is on the verge of transformation but into what is the question. Current hierarchical organisations simply cannot cope and are failing, and this includes our outdated industrial age education system.

Little has really changed since Tomorrows Schools.The most innovative period, in my memory, was in the late 60s and 70s led by creative teachers assisted by a progressive advisory service. It is to their ideas that we must return to for inspiration if developing the creativity and 'learning power' of every student is the vision we want to aim for.

To combat the restrictive forces being imposed on schools. We need courageous leadership to create the conditions and the inspiration for teachers and schools to unlock the repressed creative capabilities of both teachers and students.

Such leaders must reach beyond the narrow conception of eduction based on literacy and numeracy achievement. Initiatives that have failed to work in other countries, distorting and subverting teaching. In the process of schools complying to such initiatives the enthusiasm and love of learning of the students is being put at risk, students who continue to 'disengage' from schooling.

If we want, as Jerome Bruner wrote in the 60s, for 'each man ( to be) his own artist, his own scientist, his own historian, his own navigator' then things have to change. Or, as Guy Claxton wrote in 2008, to ensure all students 'develop the ability to pay attention, to wonder, to construct imaginative explanations, and to develop the love of learning.'

'We need a new narrative for education' , Claxton writes, 'that can engage and inspire children and their families- a tale of adventure, of learning derring- do and learning heroism. Let's us fire up the kids with deep satisfaction of discovery and exploration. They are born with learning zeal; let us recognise, celebrate and protect it, but also stretch, strengthen and diversify it'.

That we need real leaders is a matter of urgency , it is, as HG Wells wrote decades ago, 'a race between education and catastrophe' We need leaders who can express the true purpose of education. Such a purpose will need to 'emerge' out of local explorations and the networking and sharing of ideas those at the centre no longer know, or never did! All new learning comes from the edge.

There are no road maps to the future. Leaders will need to have the courage to look towards distant horizons and make their own tracks for others to follow. They will have to learn to rock the boat without falling out. They need to be provocateurs strong enough to criticize the failings and constraints ( including the imposition of simplistic 'national' testing) of the current system, even if such views will at first be unpopular.

Leaders need to pose questions and enter into dialogue with all involved. We have had enough of the corrosion of compliance and passiveness and solving endless day to day, often imposed, problems. Creativity not compliance is required.

Principal leaders will have to be inspirational models of the 'seekers, users and creators' of their own learning that the new curriculum asks teachers to develop of their students.

There is no other way.

These are moral choices.

Are there any real leaders out there?

What do the learners think?

If we are to 'personalise' learning to 'engage' all learners to develop their 'learning power' and talents ought we not take the time to listen to their views?


The people who know best about what attracts student's curiosity, or things that worry them, are the students themselves. A visit to even the most child-centred classrooms will find very little reference to students' questions, views and theories. All too often students are required to respond to what their teachers feel is important for them to learn.

A good idea, at the beginning of a school year, is to survey students' views and to compare what changes have eventuated over the period of the year as a result of the years learning.

It is not to late to undertake such a survey so as to suggest ideas for changes for the next year.

Teachers could get together to list all the topics that students could give their views on using a 1 to 5 scale ( 5 representing great). Such a list should look random, interspersing children views about subject areas ( and aspects within each) with school grounds, buildings, bullying, friendliness of staff, sports and playground facilities

It is a good idea for the teacher to run through their views of the items from when they were at school to give students 'permission' to give honest responses and to show students that their teachers are 'human'. Some teachers might express they were not very good at something but have done their best to improve.

Items could be selected out of the list for yearly comparison, for example, student attitudes towards maths or bullying.

Another end of year activity could be to list the 'key competencies' ( in 'student friendly' language) and for students to draft out their own assessment of how well they have developed these vital learning dispositions. After dialogue with the teacher finished copies could be added to their end of year report. This would be an excellent way to share with parents the importance of such future learning attributes.

Another suggestion is for teachers to ask their students to write a note to next years students to share with them the kind of things that they will need to do to thrive in your classroom.This can provide some very interesting insights!

The ideas ( or mindsets', or metaphors)) students have about school can be gained by asking them to finish the following sentences:

What is a school? A school is a place where...
What is a student? A student is a person who....
What is a teacher? A teacher is a person who...

Is a school a place where you do as the teachers says, or a place where you come to learn? Is a student a person who does as he or she is told, or a person who learns how to do new things? Is a teacher a person who tells students what to do, or a person who helps you learn?

Finally teachers could ask their students some of the following;

What do they like about school?
What would they like to learn more of?
What are the three best things about school?
What don't you like about school?
What would you like to learn less of?
What are the three worst things about school?
If you could change one thing what would it be?
What makes a good teacher?
What makes a good learner?

What are the things that interest, or concern them,that they would they like to study next year? Most likely students ideas will reflect important aspects of the current Learning Areas what were the best things they studied this year and why?

Any of the above activities would indicate to students that their ideas count and, equally importantly, might show areas for schools to acknowledge and improve?

Self managing learners

Students working together know what to do and how to go about it even if they don't know exactly what they will discover; they are exhibiting the attributes of 'self-managing learners'. Although a science 'lesson' it equally could have been undertaken during literacy or maths time as a means to introduce scientific recording for later use in a p.m. inquiry time?

Self managing is a 'key competency' both for the smooth running of a inquiry based classroom and to develop vital life long learning capabilities. As such it is highly related to future success. When students are 'self managing' it allows teachers the time to work with students who need help.

If students are to become 'active seekers, users and creators of their own knowledge' then self managing skills need to be 'taught' deliberately as an important goal of any classroom. The best way to see if students are self-managing is when the teacher leaves the room . As Art Costa says, if you do , on your return, 'what intelligent behaviours would you hope to see?'

What we want are students with a 'can do' attitude who are 'resourceful, reliable, resilient' and responsible. Or as the Placemakers ad goes, students with, 'Know how. Can do' plus additional phrases , 'Don't know how.Will give it a go'.

When teachers observe students exhibiting self-managing skills they ought to give students, or the class, credit for being such great learners.

For students to be able to develop this competency they need to know: what, when , why and how they are to go about the task -and the task ought to be one that is meaningful to them.

As time is limited for afternoon Inquiry study many of the skills need to be taught in the literacy or numeracy blocks.

This obvious solution is not often seen as these blocks are all too often taught as self contained programmes.

The 'new' curriculum makes it clear that English is all about 'making meaning' of ideas and 'creating meaning' for themselves - all teachers need to do is to use the inquiry topic as the context to do so.

Teachers need to ask themselves what independent activities can their students do by themselves?

Can they work without your presence .Leave the room for a while and see if they can.If not why, and what needs to be done.

Do they know what to do when they do not know what to do, or do they mess around until told? Do they have the attitude that there is aways work to go on with when finished -even just reading their library book?

Can they read quietly by themselves?

Are the tasks on the blackboard/task boards clear enough for students to work with minimal help?

Have they learnt the importance of not rushing their work to be first finished; that quality is more important than quantity? That they need aways to focus on personal excellence and be able to show improvement.

Do they have the co-operative learning/ discussion/listening skills to work together on a task?

Do they have the research skills ( comprehension skills) to gather information from a range of sources ( including the Internet) using key questions?

Are they able to draft out their observations, or notes, from experiments. If not teach these in the literacy block as required. Do they know how to proof read for errors of thought and for spelling? Do they know how to attempt a word they can't spell or read?

Do they have the design and presentation skills to ensure their work has aesthetic value and will be noticed? This includes use of ICT.
Do they know how to lay out their work to best effect. Such skills need to be taught in the literacy block.

Have they work , drafted in the literacy block, to make finished copies of independently in the afternoon inquiry time?

Do they have the skills of observational drawing, are they able to make graphs or diagrams if needed? Are they skilled in the ability to express their thoughts poetically if required?

Are they able to work outside without losing concentration?

By term 3 or 4 are the students able to plan and complete an inquiry topic of their own choosing making use of all the inquiry learning skills that have been introduced during the year during class and group studies? This activity is an ideal task to assess student inquiry and self managing skills.

If teachers want their students to exhibit self manging competencies then they need to consider what skills and attitudes need to be in place before students undertake any piece of learning. If students do not have the skills to do what is asked of them this is the teachers problem.

The teachers role is to develop the competencies in their students required to become 'confident,actively involved, life long learners'.

Teachers need to focus all their teaching on helping every student become a 'seeker, user, and creator of their own learning'.

2009 National testing or Inquiry learning?

When governments impose targets on schools it is not what you hit that counts it is what you miss because you weren't looking! Literacy and numeracy or life long learners?

The 'new' New Zealand curriculum provides a real opportunity for schools to develop a 21stC education. The imposition of national testing could well put this 'at risk' if what has happened in other countries is anything to go by.

National testing in Victoria - lets hope this is not the new government's intentions!

From a NZ teacher teaching in Melbourne – is this what is in the future for us? Not so much the ‘nanny state’ but the ‘big brother’ state!

‘We are right into national testing over here. There is now national testing of all year 3, 5, 7, and 9 students. It just used to be in the other states. Victoria used to be told that we were lagging behind the other states but now, low and behold, after national teaching we are one of the top states. We also have online testing in Numeracy and Maths with the results going to the Department. This is done 3x a year. Our reports are also put directly into the Department. Accountability is everything, don't worry about the teaching. We are told that it does not matter where the students start our job is to get them up to national average and they are trying to bring in performance based pay as well. Also pay incentives for expert teachers and principals to work in disadvantaged areas.’

An agenda for 2009: a focus on Inquiry Learning

1. The ‘new’ New Zealand Curriculum is all about students being: 'creative energetic and enterprising’ able to ‘make sense of their information, experiences and ideas’ so as to become ‘ confident , connected and actively involved life long learners.’

2. It asks schools to develop students who ‘are competent thinkers and problem solvers who actively seek, use, and create knowledge’. This involves giving students more choice and responsibility over their learning leading to a more ‘personalized’ approach.

3. The NZC is asking schools to develop an inquiry approach to all learning; to develop schools as ‘communities of inquiry’. An inquiry approach is about engaging students in difficult questions and issues that are meaningful to them. It is about placing ‘learnacy’ above literacy and numeracy. This would be a major change of focus for schools.

4. The need is to present learning contexts to challenge students (‘rich topics’) to be able to research and ‘reflect on their own learning, draw on personal knowledge and intuitions, ask questions and challenge the basis of assumptions and perceptions.’

5. Schools need to sort out an inquiry model for students to make use of. This model needs to move beyond the mere gathering of information to the deep construction of thoughtful understandings and, at the same time, develop the ‘key competencies’ or future attributes, or attitudes, or dispositions, required for ‘life long learning’.

6. Class inquiries ought to provide the ‘energy’ to focus the greater part of the school day and include the teaching of information research and presentation as part of the literacy programme, as well as mathematical ideas, that may be required as part of any inquiries. The NZC suggests ‘doing fewer topics in greater depth’.

7. Such inquires may feature one Learning Area in particular but will most likely involve aspects (strands) of other learning Areas as well. The curriculum is to be seen as ‘deep’ ‘connected’ and integrated. Teachers may need to plan collaboratively.

8. Teachers will need to develop focused independent group work in all learning blocks including dedicated inquiry time. Groups, or individuals, may research individual aspects and then to share findings, with a wider audience through exhibitions, publications, demonstrations, performances, information media, or posting on web. Such findings are powerful means of assessing depth of understanding and knowledge of process.

9. By covering a range of inquiry topics (covering the full range of learning Areas Strands) students will also be given the opportunity to uncover hidden gifts, talents and interests that might become life-long passions, or vocations.

10. Lack of dedicated inquiry time is an issue so the idea of ‘re framing’ the literacy and numeracy blocks to develop appropriate research skills would seem an obvious answer. This would also include integrating use of ICT.

Be interested in any thoughts. An imposition of narrowly based national testing will provide a moral challenge for school leaders.

Powerful Learning.

This book provides the research that backs up powerful learning strategies.A must read for school leaders and policy makers. Linda Darling-Hammond is a spokesperson on education for President elect Barrack Obama.


This is a book for the times. Published with the support the George Lucas Foundation (www.edutopia.org ) its premise is to demonstrate how innovative learning environments in classrooms, supported by new technologies, could revolutionize learning.

As industrial assembly lines are being given away in industry as they move towards more collaborative ways of working schools are remain caught in a web of educational thinking and systems that originated a century ago.

Fortunately the ‘dominant paradigm’ of mass education is showing sign of wear and seems incapable of being able to cater for today’s diverse range of students.

The book outlines how schools can transform themselves to help all students learn in more powerful ways so that they can meet confidently the demands the future will place on them and allow them all succeed in ways that align with their personal talents and skills.

These demands, the book argues, cannot be met by a return to basic skills and obsessive testing but instead will require that schools provide more meaningful learning experiences.

The book outlines the kind of teaching that produces more powerful learning but, more importantly, presents research on learning and teaching that summarizes what is known about effective teaching and learning strategies in three major areas – reading and literacy, mathematics and science – as well as selected strategies that are used across all learning areas and in interdisciplinary contexts, including project based learning ( inquiry learning) performance based assessment, and co-operative learning. It also looks at the factors and conditions that can influence the effectiveness of these strategies.

The book is intended for the policymakers whose decisions shape our education systems and the teachers and other educators who determine what happens in the classroom. Most valuable is the evidence the book gives about the outcomes of successful educational strategies, examples of what the looks like in practice, and insights about how they can become the norm, rather than the exception in our schools.

Of particular interest are the chapters showing how literacy and numeracy programmes need to be integrated into the inquiry programmes. All too often in our schools they are locked into their time slots and, because of this, the power of literacy and numeracy are underutilized.

This book will provide both inspiration and intellectual support for innovative schools, both primary and secondary, who are moving towards implementing the transformational spirit of the ‘new’ New Zealand Curriculum.

Natural born learners.

'Scintists in the Crib' by Gopnik, Meltzoff and Kuhl. A great book for parents of young children - and for teachers who need to trust children to do their own learning.


I had written, a while ago, that children, given the right conditions, had the attributes of young scientists.

A comment, from the Netherlands, suggested I ought to read the book The 'Scientist in the Crib' because it provided up to date research about how children learn to back up what I had written.

Great advice.

This book comes with high praise from educationalist. Jerome Bruner who writes, ‘this book is a gem, a really beautiful combination of scholarship and good sense’.

This exciting book discusses important discoveries about how much babies and young children know and learn. It argues that evolution designed both adults and children to naturally teach and learn off each other, and that the drive to learn is our most important instinct. Very young children, as well as some adults, use much of the same methods scientists use to learn so much about the world.

The Washington Post says this book, ‘should be placed in the hands of teachers, social workers, policy makers, expectant parents, and everyone who cares about children’. Another critic writes, ‘This is a terrific book – a page turner- , in fact I couldn’t wait to see what was going to happen next’. ’It is a must’.

Howard Gardner (of Multiple Intelligences fame) writes, ‘few books about human development speak so elegantly to both scholars and parents’.

A few extracts sum up the spirit of the book:

‘Scientists and children belong together in another way. New research shows babies and young children know and learn more about the world than we could ever have imagined. They think, they draw conclusions, make predictions, look for explanations, and even do experiments. Scientists and children belong together because they are the best learners in the universe’. ‘What we see in the crib is the greatest mind that has ever existed’. ‘It is not that children are little scientists but that scientists are big children’.

All the learning dispositions, including how to learn off others, are already in place at birth. One has to ask what happens to this innate ‘learning power’? If we are all born with the ability to discover the secrets of the universe why do so many children lose this love of learning; this infinite capacity to wonder and urge to question and explore?

The book expands on the three elements children have to ensure they learn :

1 Children are born with innate knowledge in place

2 They enter the world with powerful learning abilities.

3 They are 'programmed' to gain unconscious tuition from adults.

By watching young children learn, the book suggests, we can learn how to create the conditions for all students to learn. This is in contrast to the belief that underpins most teaching, that without teachers they couldn't learn. It redefines the role of the teacher to one of creating positive learning conditions, to personalise learning opportunities, providing appropriate feedback as required but always leaving the responsibility in the hand of the learner.

The book holds the solution to close the so called ‘achievement gap’ that seems to concern politicians so much. It asks us to stop teaching and to start observing. To place trust in learners because they are born to learn, it seems, until they become distracted by anxious teachers and the imposed demands of schools.

This is in contrast to those teachers who seem to want to 'deliver', plan and assess all the learning in their class. It asks of teachers to trust and respect to the natural learning abilities that all learners are born with.

It also begs the question of why it is that so many children lose this innate drive to learn? It seems that schools have become places where students learn not to do their own thing.

The end of the world as we know it!

Most of our organisational structures, and the 'mindsets' of those work within them, reflect the industrial age they originated from. Most now no longer work and any amount of 'tinkering' will not help them survive. A new interconnected world awaits those prepared to let go of the past - in reality they will have no choice! Change will be painful for many but it will be inevitable.


I was convinced in the 80s that we were to enter a new age. Marilyn Ferguson supported my thoughts in her book 'the Aquarian Conspiracy'. Her idea was that slowly, by natural evolution, all organisations were in the process of being transformed. I think now she was wrong to believe things would naturally change just because good ideas were in the air. The past has away of clinging to power whatever happens.

The dramatic financial crisis the world is now experiencing is more an earthquake than an evolution. It is the result of a build up of pressure, but my feeling is, when the dust settles,it will result in a transformed world. At least I hope so! Perhaps we needed such an earthquake to remind us we should take nothing for granted.

We now are at, what physicist Frijof Capra calls, a 'turning point'. A time of dramatic and unannounced change that will transform human consciousness. An industrial 'mindset' of growth at all costs by faith in progress will be replaced by an ecological interconnected sustainable world view.

Such turning points have punctuated human development since the dawn of time. First farming and agriculture reshaped human development, then the Renaissance ( with the aid of the printing press) and in the 19thC the Industrial Revolution. Now we have the immense power of new technologies that are eroding away all barriers.

A new wave of change is upon us which will replace the mechanistic assumptions of our present systems.

It is at such times, when old paradigms crumble ,and when new ones are not fixed in place, that we get a great burst of creative thinking. There are those who say we are entering a new Creative Era or a Second Renaissance.

This certainly is my view. We will all have to think differently - we will need 'new minds for the new Millennium'. Education must be at the centre of this revolution. This will require us to change our whole education system. For some this will be frightening ( and some will try to return to past certainties) but for others it will be exciting.

In the meantime ,as in any transition, it will be messy as people search for solutions in time when no one seems to have any answers.

The demands of our times require people to develop new capabilities. Courage, innovation, experimentation and creativity will be at a premium. Not attributes one associates with current education!

Courageous school will have to let go of old ideas which are failing our students and embrace the new. This must go well beyond the current 'tinkering' we all too often see. One thing is certain those who currently 'control' educational development have little idea of what do do. If there is to be a change it will come from creative ideas from the 'edge' but for ideas to survive they conditions to grow and spread. As the poet Yeats wrote, 'Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold'.

At the centre of our survival will be our innate ability to learn to see new patterns and take advantage of new ideas that will 'emerge' out of the chaos.

Our 'new' New Zealand Curriculum, with its vision of 'confident, connected and creative' students is timely. It asks schools to ensure all students appreciate that learning is for life; to be 'seekers, users and creators' of their own meanings. The important attribute of a future learner will be to know what to do when they do not know what to do, to paraphrase Jean Piaget. Or to act in the way that all two year olds already do and which is put 'at risk' as soon as they enter formal schooling!

The rhetoric of 'new' New Zealand Curriculum is far from being realized. What we have in out school is not a student 'achievement gap' but a 'rhetoric reality gap'. It is our industrial aged schools that are out of step with the future.

We urgently need to transform our school system to develop both the 'learning power' ( or 'key competencies') and the talents and gifts of all our students.

We need a new story to replace the mechanistic 'mass' education sorting system we now have. If all students are to leave school equipped to solve the tremendous social, economic,and environment problems that our world currently faces schools have to change. Schools need to be 'personalised' so as to ensure all students succeed to realize their potential and not just the academic students. And we now know enough to achieve this but only if we change our minds as teachers first.

Now is the time to reflect on the purpose of education.

We need, as UK educator Guy Claxton writes, ' to inspire students to become brave and confident explorers, tough enough in spirit, and flexible enough of mind, to pursue their dreams. We must help them discover the things they most passionately want to get better at. To develop the confidence and capacity to pursue their passions'.

If we are to achieve this it will be because of the efforts of creative teachers and schools. It is no use waiting for the politicians because , as Michael Fullan says, 'they always get it wrong'.

The crisis we are in goes well beyond the financial - is marks the end of past thinking and the beginning of a new world.

Real life learning!

More thoughts from Guy Claxton's book 'What's the Point of School'.


Children are born to learn but you wouldn't think so when you consider 'school failure'! This appetite to learn , according to Guy Claxton, is innate and failure ought not to be an option.

All those unmotivated students are simply kids who don't want to learn what the school wants to teach them. The question, writes Guy Claxton, 'is not whether young people can be persuaded to learn,it is: 'what stops them, or puts them off'.

The key is to base school learning on 'real life learning' that occurs when people have to deal with their 'rich, messy, disconcerting life'.

Real life learning usually happens in the context of getting something interesting done - mostly learning is a means to an end. In real life 'you zoom in on a specific bit of focused learning at just the moment you need it.' In school, a good deal of learning lacks this timing.

School learning is often piecemeal broken down into little bits. School learning usually involves solving problems of carefully graded difficulty. In real life there is no one to to do the pre-grading for you. The learning curve is anything but smooth but you usually have more control over when, why,and how you go about doing it.

In real life learning often involves a lot of collaboration and talking. No one know the answer ahead of time. More knowledgeable members help each other. In school , though there is group work, learning is essentially individual and may even be competitive

In real life people:

Watch each other and copy or adapt what they see.
They go off by themselves to practice 'hard bits'
They ask their own questions and select their own 'teachers'.
They make scruffy notes and diagrams to hep them think and plan.
They create half baked ideas and possibilities and try them out.
They run through things in their head imagining how things might play out.
They imagine themselves doing something better and use this to guide their practice.


In school, he says, you may or not make use of these kinds of general learning tools, but you will rarely hear them talked about.

The missing key, states Claxton, 'is thinking about how to narrow the gap between the way learning is 'done' in schools, and the way it is done in the outside world'.

Children , Claxton says, quoting Cambridge professor Joan Riddick, are 'hungry for the three Rs -responsibility, respect and real- and the three Cs - choice, challenge and collaboration'.

Schools, it would seem , need to do some 'real' learning if they are to ensure all students retain their birthright to learn. 'School' failure ought not to be an option.

Guy Claxton's Magnificent Eight

Guy Claxton author of 'What's the Point of School', a book that examines why our current school system is failing so many children and how we might put it right.

Claxton's first priority is to create enthusiastic learners who can thrive in our complicated world.'Learnacy', he believes is more important than literacy and numeracy'.


Guy Claxton believes that teachers need to focus on how they relate to students in their classrooms. What is important , he writes, are the values embodied in how they talk, what they notice, the activities they design, the environments they create, and the examples they set day after day. These represent the culture of the class.


Every lesson invites students to use certain habits of mind, and to shelve others. The 'key competencies' ( or 'dispositions'), he says, are not a whole new thing but are an attempt to prioritize the 'habits of mind' young people are going to need to thrive in the 21stC. For some teachers, he continues, 'key competencies' are merely making explicit what they already do.


In his book 'Whats the Point of School' he outlines what good learners do (as against being a 'successful' students). He has sorted the dispositions of good learners into what he calls his magnificent eight'.Teachers need to encourage all of them.

1 Powerful learners are curious. They are born curious and are drawn to learning. They wonder about things, and know how to ask productive questions. They enjoy the process of wondering and questioning. Curious people, however, can be demanding and skeptical of what they're told.

2 Confidant learners have courage. They are not afraid of uncertainty and complexity. They have the confidence to say, 'I don't know?' - which is always a precursor to, 'lets find out'. They are willing to take risks and try new things. They 'stick' with things and 'bounce back' when things go wrong. They also know when to give up. They have 'mental toughness' or resilience.

3 Powerful learners are good at exploration and investigation they like finding out and are good at seeking and gathering information. They take the time to attend carefully and do not jump to conclusions. They are good at 'sifting' ideas and trust their ability to tell 'good evidence'.

4 Powerful learners requires experimentation. This is the virtue of trying things out to see if it works, or just to see what happens. They make mistakes, keeping what works for 'next time'. They like adjusting things, enjoy admiring their work in progress, and seeing how they can continually improve things. They say, 'lets try'...and, 'what if?' And they also know the importance of practice.

5 Powerful learners have imagination. They know how to use their 'inner world' to explore possibilities. They know how to make use of 'mental rehearsals' of how they might act.They also know how to relax and let idea come to them, finding links and connections ; they have a good feeling of 'rightness'.

6 The creativity of imagination needs to yoked to discipline. They have the ability to think carefully, rigorously and methodically. They are good at 'hard thinking' and ask, 'how come'? They are good at creating explanations, making plans, crafting ideas, and making predictions based on their evidence. They are also open to serendipity and to changing their minds if necessary.

7 Powerful learners know the virtue of sociability. They are happy collaborating and sharing their ideas and resources. They are good members of groups able to help groups solve problems. They are able to both give their views, receive feedback, and listen respectfully to others.

8 Powerful learners are reflective. They are able to step back and take stock of progress. They are able to mull over their actions and consider how they might have done things differently. Good learners are self aware, able to contemplate their actions to continually 'grow their learning power'.

Claxton believes that his 'magnificent eight' are both specific enough, and general enough, to cover most of the positive learning behaviours ( 'key competencies') we need to encourage, both as teachers and parents.

They seem to me to be the 'dispositions' that we would want of our teachers as well?