FAIL: First attempt in learning.    This for me has always been a great concept, that we often learn the most when things go wrong, however I am increasingly conscious that maybe the world we now live in is becoming increasingly risk averse, meaning that fails are not seen as opportunities to learn, but also that we are actually reducing the number of opportunities for students to learn from difficulties, challenges and even failure.

But why would we want a child to fail?

I suppose this is the key question, who would anyone want a child to fail?    I think this almost goes to highlight one of the key challenges in that a fail is seen as a negative conclusion and something we don’t want children to suffer.   But what if a fail isn’t a conclusion but is a step within a larger journey?    If our fails aren’t terminal or final but are more a road bump along the way, a change to re-channel efforts, to change paths or approaches or to simply learn from error, maybe there isn’t an issue with a child failing.

Desirable difficulty

So, if failing isn’t negative, might it be positive?   The concept of desirable difficulty refers to the positive benefits of being challenged rather than finding things easy.  Surely something not working or going as we intended, a fail, is definitely a challenge and therefore could represent a desirable difficulty if an eventual positive outcome results.   From a fail we have the opportunity to review our practice and identify how we might change to overcome this road bump, and in doing so we learn plus may also grow more resilient.  That clearly sounds like a desirable outcome, albeit I will also acknowledge it may not be easy, but I suppose the term “desirable difficulty” already says this.

Risk aversion

The challenge with all this is that, I feel, as a society we are becoming more risk averse.   We look at GCSE pass rates and want more students to pass each year, with the pass rates being in the high 90%s.    So, this meets our need for all students, or at least most, to achieve, but does it therefore rob students of the opportunities to experience and learn from failure.    As teachers we add scaffolding, we differentiate, we provide additional support where needed, and much more to make students succeed, but again are we depriving students of the benefits which result from where things go wrong?    In relation to AI in education we worry about AI errors, about bias, etc, where I don’t think we can get rid of these things;  Shouldn’t we embrace the technologies, teach students to be critical and accept that sometimes there will be a fail, but that students will then learn from this?

Monitoring and supervision

And looking more broadly we now monitor our children more than ever before, wanting to know their every move and making sure they have a mobile phone on them so they can be easily contactable.  We take them to football games and to other events, often being the ones which arrange the events, where once upon a time kids sorted their own entertainment, returning only once the street lights came on.   I look at my own childhood and the experiences I had when out with friends, sometimes just playing football or having fun, and sometimes maybe up to things my parents may not have approved of.  But in all of this I learned from my experiences, I made mistakes and picked myself up and moved on eventually better for it.

Compliance

And then there’s compliance and the world of health and safety among other areas.    We increasingly mandate things or require checks to be carried out, meaning activities we once did now take more time and effort due to the need to deal with compliance requirements.   As we add all this extra work and effort, the risk assessments, checks and balances, it makes us less likely to try new things and to experiment.   The potential gains of a project, of a new technology for use in the classroom, or many other things may not have changed, but the overhead in terms of checks and balances is now greater than it used to be so this means the perceived differential between the gain and the effort has reduced.   This increases the likelihood we will simply evaluate the technology, project or other activity, coming to the conclusion that the benefit is not sufficient to outweigh the efforts needed, and therefore the status quo remains.   

Conclusion

I came across a quote recently:  “life begins at the edge of your comfort zone”.  The challenge however is that we increasingly don’t want to allow students to experience the edge of their comfort zone for fear of fails or discomfort.   So what kind of life, and what kind of learning will result?  

And so, the exams season is in full flow with students across the world once again sitting in rows in exam halls, which are often simply school sports halls, with pen and paper to complete their end of course GCSE and A-Level exams.   If you looked at the halls the setup might be very much similar to exams from 100 years ago or more albeit education is now more accessible to the masses and exam halls now contain posters about “mobile devices” and how these are prohibited.    How is it possible that the exams process has changed so little?

Lets consider the wider world;  I asked ChatGPT for the significant technology advancements from the last 100 years and it came up with the below:

Computing and Information Technology:

The development of electronic computers and the birth of modern computing including the emergence of the internet and the World Wide Web, revolutionizing communication, information sharing, and commerce.

Transportation:

The rise of commercial aviation, making air travel accessible to millions and facilitating global connectivity along with the development of high-speed trains and advanced railway systems, enhancing transportation efficiency and connectivity.   Also, the proliferation of automobiles and the continuous improvement of electric vehicles and autonomous driving technologies.

Medicine and Healthcare:

The discovery and widespread use of antibiotics, dramatically reducing mortality rates from bacterial infections along with the development of vaccines against various diseases, leading to the eradication of smallpox and the control of many others.   Additionally, advancements in medical imaging technologies, such as X-rays, MRI, and CT scans, enabling non-invasive diagnosis and improved treatment planning plus progress in genetic research and biotechnology, including the mapping of the human genome and the development of gene therapies.

Space Exploration:

The first human-made object in space, the launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, and subsequent manned space missions, culminating in the moon landing in 1969.    The establishment of space agencies like NASA, ESA, and others, leading to significant advancements in space technology, satellite communications, and planetary exploration.   And more recently the development of reusable rockets, such as SpaceX’s Falcon 9, reducing the cost of space travel and opening up opportunities for commercial space exploration.

Energy and Sustainability:

The expansion of renewable energy sources, including solar and wind power, as alternatives to fossil fuels plus improvements in energy storage technologies, such as lithium-ion batteries, facilitating the growth of electric vehicles and renewable energy integration.   This combined with a greater focus on sustainability and environmental awareness, driving innovations in energy-efficient buildings, green technologies, and eco-friendly practices.

Communication and Connectivity:

The evolution of telecommunications, from landline telephones to mobile phones, and the subsequent development of smartphones with advanced features and internet connectivity.   Also, the introduction of social media platforms, changing the way people connect, share information, and communicate globally and the advancement of wireless communication technologies, such as 4G and 5G, enabling faster data transfer, enhanced mobile connectivity, and the Internet of Things (IoT).

Conclusion

A lot has changed over the last 100 years, with a lot of the above occurring maybe in the last 10 to 20 years, yet in education we are still focussed on terminal exams like we were over 100 years ago.   We still take students in batches based on their date of birth and make them sit the same exam at the same time.    These exams are still provided as a paper document with students completing them with pen or pencil while sat in rows and columns in sports halls in near utter silence.  The papers are then gathered up and sent away to be marked with results not available for almost 3 months.

The above might have been ok 100 years ago but with the modern technology available to us now surely we should have made some progress.    I suspect, although there have been those who have suggested change, there hasn’t been a catalyst to drive it forward.   My current hope is that recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and recent discussion regarding its use and potential, may be the catalyst we need.   Here’s to not still using the same exam processes 10 years from now, never mind 100!

So, a research study has arrived at the conclusion that due to Covid19 students may be 3 months behind in their studies.     The delaying of exams to allow students more time to catch up has also been discussed.   This all seems like rather simplistic thinking.

There are for me a number of issues with delaying the exams.

The first is that we already accept that exams differ each year and therefore there is already tinkering in place to adjust the grade boundaries to keep some consistency across academic years when looking at the statistical outcomes of students in general.   This is why the result show small but steady changes year on year rather than being more volatile. It seems to me to be fairly easy to just adjust this process to normalise the exam results next year should they be, as would be expected, lower than previous years and should it be important to maintain parity in results across different calendar years. And this statistical fiddle would be more acceptable than the algorithm proposed for 2020 results as it doesnt differ from the statistical adjustments of GCSE and A-Level results in 2019, 2018, etc.

Another issue, if we were to delay the exams, is that it simply knocks on to following years.   So, delay the GCSE exams would mean teachers would lose some teaching time they would likely use to start A-Level studies or to start Year 13 teaching of A-Level subjects following Year 12 exams.  As such it doesnt solve the issue, but rather displaces it. Is the focus not on learning rather than measuring learning? As such how can any solution with a knock on to teaching and learning be acceptable.

Also, the point students should be at the end of each academic year has been arbitrarily determined.   At some point the curriculum for each subject was developed and the content decided for each year or stage however it could have easily been decided that more or less content be added.   Why, therefore, is the point students should be at perceived to be so immovable?Why not simply reduce content for the year based on the reduced time available to students? Surely this is an alternative option.

There is also the point that next years results will be compared with this years results, where it has already been reported this years results were significantly up.   This obviously resulted from the use of centre assessed grades, provided by teachers, without any of the normal annual statistical manipulation in relation to grade boundaries.    This comparison is unavoidable.So, despite any delay, etc, there is still a high likelihood of negative reporting in the press with regards the 2021 results, with knock-ons in terms of students/parents being disappointed.

This bring us nicely to the big question I have seen a number of people ask, which is 3 months behind who or what?     Is it 3 months behind where teachers think they would be had Covid19 not arisen?   A prediction based on a predication doesn’t provide me with much confidence as to its statistical reliability.   Is it three months behind in terms of curriculum content covered at the predicted rate that content is covered?   Again this suffers given it relies on predicated rate of coverage of materials plus could the content be covered at a faster rate but in less depth possibly?

Maybe this issue is an opportunity to reassess our assumptions and to question our current approach regarding education and how it is assessed or are we simply going to accept that this is the way things are done around here and that any changes should be limited and only in maintaining the status quo? I believe we have reached a fork in the road, however I worry that we may look to take the route which looks easier.

Public exams were introduced in the mid eighteen hundreds, over 150 years ago and I would suggest that they haven’t changed that much.    They are now a foundational element of the world we live in.   Your qualifications, or the grades you get in these qualifications largely determined by exams, dictate your progress and the options available to you as you progress through the education system.  From secondary education to further education then onto university and eventually careers each influenced by the grades you achieve.     To pass each exam a key skill is memorisation.  To memorise key facts, to memorise approaches to using these facts and to memorise and practice techniques to manage exams.   The issue is that in a world of technology, a world where most of us carry Google in our pockets complete with the worlds biggest collection of knowledge plus videos and animations to demonstrate how to use this knowledge, is it really critical that we memorise things?

For some student memorisation is easy as is exam technique and therefore the exam system is perfect for them.   For others memorisation is more difficult and exams bring out exam stress.  In terms of the end outcome both types of students may be capable of the same things, albeit one may need to quickly review Google for assistance.    This seems to be biased in favour of those students who are better suited to exams which is unfair.

Lots has also been written about differing achievement rates in different types of schools, different social-economic backgrounds, etc.   I am not going to expand on this here, only to say that most discussions finish with a lack of equity for students in differing circumstances being identified; that students access to learning and preparation for the all important exams isn’t fair.

Taking “fairness” a stage further, we would expect all students who answer a particular question in a particular way to achieve the same number of marks however, outside of fact-based questions, answers need to be marked by human examiners which introduces variability.  Yes, there are standardisation/moderation processes to try reduce the probability of students receiving unfair outcomes but these only reduce the probability rather than eliminating it.

We also have the annual adjustment of marks boundaries to reduce unfairness where a particular years exam questions might be more or less difficult that the previous years.   On one hand this is good as it seeks to reduce the probability of unfair outcomes, however the existence of this process, and of the standardisation/moderation processes mentioned above both acknowledge the fundamentally unfair nature of exams.

For 2019/20 there will be no exams and instead teachers who have worked with students throughout the year will be making professional judgements as to what students would have achieved.   Schools will then be seeking to check that results across the school are fair, followed by the exam bodies to checking fairness across all schools.   I am not sure how this will be any more or less fair than what we had before.   It may be that the sudden nature of the introduction of this process may be unfair, but outside of this I am unsure that it will have introduced any greater variability than that which existed previously.

I think those asking about the fairness of the 2019/20 results are asking the wrong question.  I suspect some may be invested in the exams machine, while some maybe so used to the exam system that they are scared of potential change and of the unknown.   The big question I find myself with is, if we can issue final qualification grades in 2019/20 without the need for final exams, do we really need these standardised exams in 2020/21 and beyond?

Synchronous

If we take the SAMR model and the first element of it, substitution, using live video as a substitute for the classroom experience seems to make sense where the classroom experience is not an option.    At a basic level it looks like a simple swap.   Through live video students continue to get access to some of the visual ques present in face to face communication.   They also have the opportunity to engage in the more social side of learning with quick feedback and two-way communications allowing discussion points or ideas to be explored and clarification to be sought where confusion arises.   I believe the social benefits of video-based communication in particular are very important as learning is very much a social activity so the more similar we can make it to “normal” social interaction the better.

The challenge with the above being access to high speed internet to support video plus issues around latency of sound and video which cause problems as soon as multiple people try to talk or where people try to interject with their thoughts or comments.  These issues don’t exist in real time face to face situations in a classroom, or at least they don’t where good classroom management exists.

Another synchronous option might instead be the use of real time discussion or chat solutions.  This doesn’t have the same issue in relation to a need for bandwidth or in relation to video/audio latency.  That said, I believe that typed comments, thoughts, ideas and questions are simply a proxy for spoken offerings, and as a proxy lose some of the detail which exists with face to face real time communications either in real life or via video.  As a result, you can expect higher rates of miscommunication and misunderstanding.

Probably the biggest concern with a synchronous approach is that of workload, stress and strain.   Delivering either real time video or chat isn’t normal when compared with how lessons are generally taught.    This means teaching this way represents a cognitive load in terms of using the technology tools, considering pedagogical approaches and adjusting these, and managing to get feedback from students as an activity or lesson progresses;   Never underestimate the feedback a classroom of students provides through comments, body language, the groups attitude, etc, all of which are more difficult to gather remotely via a screen.  This departure from the current established norm therefore represents an additional load on teachers.

Asynchronous

This focusses more on providing content with students able to work on it in their own time.   From a teachers point of view this is likely to be less stressful as they can plan and develop the required content, including repurposing already produced resources for sharing content.   As it doesn’t put the students directly in front of the students the cognitive load isn’t as significant, as teachers have time to think before responding to students or before posting the next activity.

The challenge here however is that in asynchronous learning the social aspect is lacking.   There isn’t the same interaction between students and teacher or between students and their peers that there is with synchronous or real time activities.    There is also a greater reliance on intrinsic motivation as it requires the students to complete activities in their own time without the teacher prompting in real time.

Sync vs async?

We would never suggest that learning in a classroom, in real time and face to face, was either synchronous or asynchronous.   The teacher might lead a class through some content or a discussion in a synchronous fashion then later in the lesson provide students learning activities to work through in a more asynchronous fashion.   The teacher may then review learning with students back in a more synchronous style.     We would never suggest the teacher just provide resources for students to work through in classroom lessons, or that the teacher and students spend their lessons all working together.

So why is this even being discussed in relation to remote learning?    It doesn’t make any sense to me!

Learning is a complex process best nurtured by experienced educators who know which tools to use and when, who know when they need to work in synchronicity with students or when to empower students to work on their own or in groups in a more asynchronous approach.    It isn’t a question of synchronous versus asynchronous learning.   Its, as is often the case, about finding the right balance between the two extremes, the balance which suits the teacher, the students and learning which is taking place.

Students can use technology to choose when to learn, using online resources, flip classrooms videos and a multitude of other methods.   Students can choose how to learn or the medium they wish to explore learning through whether this be exploring textual content via Wikipedia, video content from YouTube or audio content via a podcast.   They can also make use of the likes of Skype, Twitter or other platforms to engage in two-way communication and learning with experts, their teachers or other individuals the world over.    This brings us to the global nature of learning in this technological age.    Our learning is no longer limited to our local context.   Instead it can span the earth as I myself know having taken part in a Skype session with a school in Saudi Arabia as just one example of learning across geographical borders.   This opens learners up to new contexts, viewpoints and perspectives which were previously inaccessible, however through technology can easily be arranged.   It also allows them to stretch their own learning and learning experiences beyond that presented formally within their school and by their teachers, exploring those areas which are of particular appeal or interest.

Using technology students can choose the tools they want to use in taking notes during lessons, in revising content and in producing assessment materials.  They can also accommodate for their own specific learning needs using accessibility tools including tools for students with visual impairments, dyslexia or students who are second language learners for example.

Technology is a tool which can have significant impact on learning.   The ability for students to personalise learning and learning content is a key to this potential, putting the learner more in control of their own learning experiences.    It is less about us, as educators, personalising learning for our learners and more about providing them the tools and technologies to allow them to personalise learning for themselves.

Recently I have had the opportunity to see a number of online training platforms, in different contexts, which are being used to address some of the above.   The idea is that these online platforms allow staff to receive training on the areas which relate to them, while maintaining a central record of what training has been done and also sending out notifications and reminders when training has to be renewed.    All sounding good so far?

The issue I have with this is that the focus has almost totally shifted to that of compliance rather than developing learning in relation to the risk area which is being covered.    The platform shows who has done which training courses plus ensures that people do the courses, but does this actually improve the learning related to the particular risk area?

One look at some of the online training content shows multiple ways in which content can either be quickly skipped through or missed out altogether.   I must admit my own urge, when presented with some of these online courses, is to simply get it finished as quickly as possible to allow me to get on with matters I deem to be more pressing.    In addition, the content is not particularly engaging taking the form of video lectures or large amounts of text, with only minimal interaction.   Even the attempts at testing user knowledge at the end of units or modules is superficial in nature plus very much dependent on short term memory of facts as opposed to testing more longer term, or deeper learning of the subject matter.   A user may therefore seem to be proficient in a given area such as cyber security, having completed the relevant online course however may have learned very little if anything from it.

Here we see an example of the focus shifting from developing an understanding of health and safety, for example, to ensuring all have done the health and safety online course.     We stop worrying about understanding of health and safety as we can demonstrate that all staff are deemed proficient having completed to relevant online course.   We have achieved compliance but not competence.   We are considering what we can measure, the completion of online training, as what matters as opposed to trying to measure what matters.

I think we need to take a step away from the compliance culture.  Yes, it is easier to measure an organisations health and safety awareness by the number of people who have completed the annual training, but does this mean the understanding and practice is there?    I believe it doesn’t.    And if it doesn’t why should be spend the time, money and effort on these courses.   Surely, we need to find a better way?

The key for me lies in two areas, the first being how we educate and then on how we measure that learning has taken place.    In the area of education I think it is about making use of multiple delivery methods from short online content to in person training, posters and email awareness programmes.  We also need to continually adapt and revise our approaches which brings me neatly onto measuring.   We need to find methods of measuring whether this is short tests at intervals throughout the year, playing out scenarios, audits or focus group discussions.   This can help inform us as to what has been learned and what has not, and in doing so can help us revise and redesign.   In revising and redesigning we can then seek to build better understanding in our staff.    Yes, this is all much more difficult than simply firing out an online course for staff to do however it builds deeper learning.

Deeper learning is likely to serve a staff member and the organisation much better than a tick against an online training course in the event of a cyber, health and safety, COSSH or other issue.

As is normally the case the world isn’t as tidy and simple as we would like it.    Hattie’s study is a good example of research in that it gathered data from across a number of different studies and contexts, plus over a period of time.   It therefore presented findings which could be more easily generalised across educational settings and contexts.   The issue here is the generalisable nature of the findings.    It means that the findings “generally” hold true.   In specific contexts or situations it is therefore possible that the findings may not hold true.   Looking at education in general this is all well in good but teachers are dealing with individual students in their classrooms and therefore should be seeking to find what works for each child.    Holding too strong a view in relation to research findings may lead to practices that don’t work with certain students being applied because the research shows they “generally” work.   Worse still it could lead to practices that do work in a given situation and/or context being labelled as “generally” inappropriate and not being tried.     We need to see educational research as a guide but be careful to understand that in some situations, doing the opposite may equally be effective.

Hattie’s study is based on a thorough and large data set meaning its statistical reliability is reasonable high.   One problem with educational research is that most studies are not based on such a large data set.   They are often based on a very small sample of schools and students.   Studies are often conducted within a specific context such as a certain geographical area, national or region culture, certain age range or curriculum subject.    The validity of the findings when generalised outside the context of the study is often questionable.   I remember my own masters level study when we were guided on the need to state that the findings “suggested” or “pointed towards” as opposed to “demonstrating” or “showing” something to be true.   You will find in most good education research a similar language in the conclusions.    Without a large amount of data gathered from different contexts across a period of time it is highly unlikely any research findings can be generally applied across all or even most educational contexts.    Even where findings are generalizable this doesn’t mean they are replicable in an individual context.

I need to be clear, I am not saying we shouldn’t use educational research in directing practice in individual schools and classrooms.   What I am saying is we should do so with an awareness of the limitations, and bear these in mind.

It was the 88^th minute when Ronaldo stepped up and stuck his free kick round the wall and into the top right corner of the goal.   The Independent described the goal as “sublime”.    I suspect throughout the tournament, and beyond, we will repeatedly see re-runs of the television footage of this goal.

The learning point for me lies in a fact which the commentator shared after the initial shock and awe which immediately followed the goal.    This attempt, this free kick in the world cup, a major tournament, was Ronaldo’s 45^th attempt to score from a free kick in a major tournament.   Ronaldo had attempted and failed to score on 44 occasions.

I take two things away from this.

1) Never give up.    Ronaldo had made attempt after attempt and failed to score yet with 2 minutes left in the game which Portugal were losing, he still decided to try a difficult shot despite 44 failed attempts.   He could have gone with easier options such as crossing the ball.   He could have considered the likelihood of success having failed 44 times and judged a direct attempt on goal too risky or too unlikely to success however instead he went with the attempt and saw his 45^th attempt sail into the net.

2) Beware of your memory.    We will remember the quality of this goal for time to come.  We will hail Ronaldo as one of the best players in the world if not the best but do we remember the 44 failed attempts?   I doubt it.   This is simply the availability bias at work, in that the goal was recent plus it had a positive outcome, hence it comes easier to mind than the 44 failed attempts.    Students need to be aware of this bias.    One test result or one piece of feedback, whether positive or negative, is not a measure of our ability, knowledge or skill, despite the fact it will come easily to memory.   We need to take care and avoid such strong memories influencing decision making or our perceptions of ourselves and our abilities.

I am sure the World Cup will continue to serve up opportunities for learning as well as providing entertainment.   For now I will get back to watching the Croatia vs. Servia game.

References:

FourFourTwo.com, June 2018,  Ronaldo finally scores major tournament set-piece at 45th attempt, https://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/ronaldo-finally-scores-major-tournament-set-piece-45th-attempt#z5avX1ERoRL6kFMc.99

Luke Brown, Independent, June 2018, Cristiano Ronaldo World Cup 2018 hat-trick goal: Portugal star makes history with stunning free kick against Spain, https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/cristiano-ronaldo-goal-free-kick-hat-trick-video-watch-portugal-vs-spain-world-cup-2018-a8401436.html

Image link: http://www.goal.com/en/news/ronaldo-finally-has-a-world-cup-performance-to-sit-alongside-his-/qvhs25c6727q1qzz72mib4b4t

As I drove to Tesco I found myself cheering up as I looked out on the blue sky in between the clouds.   I even found myself rolling down the window.    Something as simple as cheery upbeat music in the car had had the effect of changing my mood.      So how could this simple change impact on well-being if it was part of your daily routine, music in the car or when doing the chores at home, music in the classroom or when marking, etc.

I have decided that before work begins once more on Monday I will create a playlist for my own car purposely selecting up beat music.

I wonder what the implications are for the use of music within the classroom in order to put students in the mood for learning.    I know I have read in various books about the impact of music on mood, emotions and learning.   I also have read various examples of how teachers are make use of this concept however like a lot of approaches which can have an impact they often disappear under the busy activities of the average school day until something brings them back to mind;  For me my drive to Tesco in my wife’s car did just that.