Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘normal

Better edubloggers than me have reminded us why schools should not return to normal post-pandemic.

In a moment of serendipity, Seth Godin just blogged this:

…we learn in ways that have little to do with how mass education is structured…

…The educational regimes of the last century have distracted us. It turns out that the obvious and easy approaches aren’t actually the ones that we need to focus on.

How likely is meaningful change to happen? Not very, but we can hope while pushing from whatever edge and corner we are at.

If nothing substantial happens this time round, perhaps the next pandemic will bring a more forceful reminder.

History repeats itself. It has to, because no one ever listens. -- Steve Turner.

The news article in the tweet above provided a long answer to the question why the percentage of children graduating from primary to secondary school has not changed over five years.

One short version of the long answer is that the number of students taking the exam, the PSLE, is statistically large enough that the pattern repeats itself.

But here are a few short considerations.

A normal distribution is a bell curve, but a bell curve does not have to look like a normal distribution. The majority of students — about 66% — end up in the Express stream so the bell is skewed.

Not force fitting results into a curve does not mean that moderation did not occur. Moderation exercises typically occur after many individuals grade papers. The graders make adjustments should they be too strict or too lenient.

As the post-exam processes are not completely transparent, we can only guess what happens out of the view of stakeholders. But another short answer presents itself if you lean cynical: We have found a comfortable formula and we are sticking to it for sorting’s sake.

Not a day goes by when I hear or read about someone wishing that things got back to normal. That is not just wishful thinking, it is also harmful.

We cannot return to the way things were because we cannot travel back in time. We can only move forward. I have a favourite saying about people who look back and see only good and conveniently ignore the bad:

Nostalgia is like grammar. It makes the past perfect and the present tense.

The wish to turn back the clock — like trying to make America great again — is harmful. It ignores current context, the progress we have made, and the problems we still need to solve.

We should not go back to normal if that means wasting time on work commutes, loutish behaviours on public transport, or attending pointless meetings.

We should not go back to normal if that means wasting natural resources, polluting our environment, and not adopting sustainable habits.

As an educator, I certainly do not want to be part of teaching that focuses on what the teacher does, traditional assessments, and putting administrative needs first.

Wishing for the normal of the past ignores what we need to do today and tomorrow. It is a failure to imagine and to be better than we were before.

Tags:

I have reflected on how we should not return to “normal” post COVID-19. Others have expressed the same thoughts in different and better ways than me.

Earlier this month, Lisa Lane introduced a recent reflection like this:

I hear people say things like “when things go back to normal” or “after the pandemic” or just “afterwards”.

That might have worked for something that lasted a few weeks. Or for a hurricane or fire that destroys your home, then you have to rebuild. We can’t do that yet — this is the classic slow-motion train wreck. And anyone who’s rebuilt, had tragedy strike, knows that nothing is ever the same again.

Because we cannot go backward. Trust me on this — I’m a historian. I know backward. We only go forward.

Returning to normal can be backward if you retain the ignorance and stupidity in the normal that was.

So what happens if we do move forward? Tim Stahmer tweeted this as a reaction to claims of the “new normal”.

The new normal can reek of empty rhetoric or policy speak, particularly when it is the old disguised as new.

So what really is daring, different, and desperately needed? I offer Alfie Kohn’s take on testing and grading.

He offered evidence for the normal failing the less privileged and better alternatives like pass/fail and ungrading, and no grading that served everyone.

If those ideas sound foreign, that is sadly normal. We need to move forward without the baggage of catchphrases and millstones of legacy. As Kohn put it, this is our “chance to turn a(n) epidemiological crisis into an educational opportunity”.

 
The transfer of teaching strategies between physical and online classrooms does not seem to be balanced.

When forced to conduct emergency remote teaching, most teachers transferred strategies they were already familiar with, e.g., teacher talk and proctored exams.

While such a response is understandable — the runway was short and the need was urgent — repeating these behaviours when we know better is irresponsible. Teachers need to be taught how to design for and to facilitate actual online learning.

Teachers also need to be guided to reflect on why certain strategies failed and to learn from the successes of others who avoided the usual tropes.

When they return to their classrooms, they also need to transfer online designs that are likely to work well in-person, e.g., independent learning strategies, greater choice and individualisation, broader and context-based assessment, ungrading.

Things should not return to normal; they should get better. This means that teachers learn how to facilitate online learning and also that classroom-based teaching improves as a result.

 
During the COVID-19 lockdown, people seemed to ask: When are things going to return to normal?

I, for one, do not want things to return to normal if normal means:

  • still being selfish and inconsiderate.
  • being wasteful of time and resources.
  • forgetting how even emergency remote teaching might improve classroom practice.

Oh, and please do not spout “the new normal” if this is just old packaged as new. That phrase is as overused and meaningless as “unprecedented”. Even a casual examination of recent history and a cursory study of systems will reveal that little has never happened before and that norms take a long time to establish. By the time norms establish, they are not new any more.

Tags:

While at a university campus recently, I decided to get lunch from a canteen food stall that I had not visited in about two years. The tenants were no longer there, but there was a replacement.

I decided to try their fish and chips. That is all I got: Some overcooked breaded fish and a few potato wedges. I guess I expected too much given what the previous tenant offered.

I asked if they could give me some coleslaw. The server looked offended, plonked a teaspoonful on my plate, and mumbled, “Normally we don’t give!”


Video source

This clip of Oliver asking for more came immediately came to my mind.

I quickly forgot the clip as the food not only cost more, it also tasted terrible.

It was not just me. A group of undergraduate students sat at my table and one who opted for another dish from the same stall complained about the cost, the taste, and the unpleasant service.

As I returned my plate and cutlery, I remembered what the server said: “Normally we don’t give!” Normally, I would expect better service and food.

However, what is “normal” can change. When new management takes over, they can prioritise quantity instead of quality. When they do, they go for the biggest bang for their buck. It makes the most sense on paper and it can be profitable. If the tenant gets bad reviews, they leave, and someone else runs through the revolving door to take their place.

While I ruminate on the food experience, this is really about university education. I was on campus to conduct a series of workshops to change the teaching mindsets, expectations, and behaviours of future faculty.

By sheer coincidence, one future professor/lecturer gave a blunt assessment when I asked the group what they would build on from the previous sessions:

Teaching methods at {university name removed} are TERRIBLE!! Lecturers have no interesting [sic] in eliciting an emotional response from the students.

Perhaps this was that person’s way of saying “Normally we don’t give… a damn about teaching.”

Not everyone is as candid. However, just about anyone with a current experience as a university student can probably relate.

There are a few very good university educators who stay up to date with technology and the latest developments in pedagogy. However, this is not norm.

This is why I like being part of a small group of educators that is trying to change what is normal. If we cannot change existing faculty who are too set in their ways, we will work with future faculty who are more in touch with learner expectations. When they become professors in their own right whether here or elsewhere, they might bring their new insights with them.

There is no guarantee that all will change for the better. Whatever changes that happen will also take at least a generation of instructors to turn over. However, we play the long game and we hedge our bets.

If we do nothing, nothing will happen. If we do something, something might.


http://edublogawards.com/files/2012/11/finalistlifetime-1lds82x.png
http://edublogawards.com/2010awards/best-elearning-corporate-education-edublog-2010/

Click to see all the nominees!

QR code


Get a mobile QR code app to figure out what this means!

My tweets

Archives

Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: