If you offered a course in Common Sense, who would take it? Logically, who would need it?
Obviously Project Management Methodology is far more than common sense. But I believe the study of Project Management would go a long way toward elevating our collective 'Common Sense'.
I'm not a qualified PM Professional. I have taken introductory courses on it and have been intrigued by it ever since. I use the concepts of Project Management, both formally and informally, in much of the work that I do.
This is certainly not the place to outline the whole range of Processes or Process Groups of PM, but let's take, as an illustration, the concept of Risk Management and how it can pertain to common tasks. I recently spoke with a teacher who was exasperated with the difficulties in a number of students not reaching timelines in the course. There is a sense of hopelessness that can permeate discussions when students are far enough behind.
It can be discouraging, certainly, but this situation isn't simply an indication of poor planning - or poor Project Planning. It's an opportunity for Project Management to come to the rescue of the situation and enable forward motion. It's clear that when a skyscraper is being built, a robust Project Management Plan and PM Structure is in place with a formal Project Manager. It would be a rare occurrence for the whole building to be completed without serious Risks predicted, realized and mitigated. So how do they do it?
In the case of the classroom, there are really only 3-1/2 things you can do. Actually 4-1/2 but we can assume one has already been done**. So if you only have 3-1/2 things that you can do, it simplifies the approach and allows for forward motion.
1. Reduce Scope
2. Extend Timeline
3. Extend Resource
3-1/2. Any combination of the above.
That solution set is also the limit of response that can be employed when your skyscraper isn't on schedule.
**This assumes that the teacher and student have already negotiated the establishment of a Critical Path. That process is not likely called Critical Path, and it's criminal how the very powerful PM concept of Critical Path has been co-opted and warped for another purpose in the educational sector.
So this simplifies the discussion. Some would argue Over-Simplifies. I would disagree. The discussion and the option categories are exactly as stated. How you reach the specifics of the option chosen is work to be done, for sure, but the category of options is extremely clear.
Project Management Process Definitions bring considerably more to the table when it comes to 'Doing Stuff'. Project Definition Structures (Integration Management), Scope Management, Time Management, Cost, Quality, HR, Risk, Procurement all have every-day, every-person applications. And most notably, Communication Management is something that is under-articulated in most human activity.
And that's just it - Articulation. Project Management is "The Fine Art of Articulating the Common Sense of Doing Stuff". Or "The Articulation of the Fine Art of the Common Sense of Doing Stuff". Or just "The Fine Art of Doing Stuff". I would prefer to keep the "Articulation" in the definition of the field lest we end up just doing things and assuming that we understand them. OK - how many times did you read this paragraph?
When should this happen? As early as students are working on Projects. So that would probably mean Junior grades or lower. Obviously, the Processes and Process Groups would be reduced to those required for the task at hand and language would be adjusted to be age-appropriate.
A danger of this focus would be that it degenerates into a lesson on Time-Management. Time Management is only 1 of 9 defined Processes of Project Management. There's necessarily far more to 'Doing Stuff' than time management.
All of us - Teachers, Principals, Students, Business Administrators, Homeowners - could and should benefit from the study of Project Management. It's an art that has evolved over centuries of building pyramids, writing symphonies, putting on Broadway Shows, programming MSWord. We may as well stand on the shoulders of giants.
It would be so cool if it were common sense.
Friday, 24 February 2012
Monday, 20 February 2012
Do 'Smart' Kids Really Know How To Learn?
Stemming from thoughts surrounding a conversation that occurred a few weeks ago...
The hypothesis raised was this: "What is the group of students who have the highest frequency of under-achievement?" After some thought, the suggestion put forward was "Students achieving at Level 4".
Rather interesting proposal...
But first some ground-rules.
1. Post title - 'Smart' Kids: Obviously a terrible label to put on anyone. It's far too primitive a classification to use on something as complex and multi-faceted as intelligence. But for the next few paragraphs, let's just assume that I meant students who are in no risk of failing to rise to the Ministry Content Standard at a high Level 3 or Level 4 achievement. Everyone is smart. We're going to allow us to use this narrow definition for now.
2. Under-Achievement: Here's where the meat of the issue is. Under Achievement in the industrial age is evaluated against a common benchmark. 'Sub-standard' is term that may illustrate this idea. But we're in a world of Differentiated Instruction and Board Mission statements with some flavour of "Students Rising to Their Potential", we could consider Under-Achievement being evaluated against the student's potential for learning. (student's, not students').
So the challenge in the hypothesis - ignoring for now the difficulty in ever proving it - is to address students' true learning needs at an individual level. So what does a student achieving at level 2 need? Probably some assistance with learning skills to help them gain strategies to achieve in the content area. What does a student achieving at level 3 need? Work to consolidate their learning and maintain or increase their achievement levels. What does a student achieving at level 4 need? Challenge opportunities to deepen their understanding.
How it can play out, however, is that the challenge and extension opportunities for students achieving at level 3 and 4 are not robust enough and certainly not as urgent as the needs of the struggling student. Even in an ideal situation where the teacher is motivated to provide those opportunities, there are forces at play that weaken the learning opportunity for the standard-achieving student.
First - time and attention is clearly being focussed on the struggling learner. Again and again we focus on strategies for the At-Risk student and target-to-move students who are struggling to reach standard. We set marker students to evaluate research activity and often these are students with content difficulties. This is to be expected and is good sound practice. Still, challenging all learners is time-consuming.
Second, though - the practice of challenging students at standard has a prickly surface. It is not always easy to require students to go beyond what the other students are doing as criticisms can come from all sides - students being challenged, other students, parents. Add to that the fact that many of the curricular expectations within courses don't explicitly indicate a high enough depth of complexity or difficulty to challenge some of these students. So in order to actually challenge them, you have to work beyond the curriculum. That can mean you're struggling for access to resources and possibly 'working without a net' when it comes to justifying evaluation and instructional activities.
However, referring to my previous post "Self-Regulation as primary mission", if we consider the attainment of skills in regulating learning as important enough for all learners, it's imperative that we challenge all learners to the brink of frustration to grant them the opportunities to learn these skills.
And here's where the danger lies. Without those opportunities to be challenged with difficult things to learn, the opportunities to gain Self-Regulated Learning skills don't have the opportunity to truly develop. Certainly students achieving at Level 4 often have a grasp on strategies for getting through the work, but to truly dive deeply into your own learning and understanding the process, one has to be faced with challenges that forces investigation into one's learning.
A simple example of this is the student who achieves high marks through high school and goes to university, only to find out that they really don't know how to study for exams. Or to prepare a large-scale assignment in an area they don't yet understand and struggle with. It could be said that a student who struggled in high school is better equipped to tackle difficult learning because they've had to do it more and have been in the position of using a wider variety of strategies to drive their learning most successfully. Perhaps they've been given the language to articulate their learning strategies whereas a standard-achieving student hasn't really had to pay attention to that.
So what's to be done?
Lest we simply check the standard-achieving students as 'good-to-go', they need to have truly challenging opportunities. Learning Challenges will provide the opportunity to realize Self-Regulated Learning. The concept of the 'Wicked' problems - generally large-scale rich tasks - should be brought to an individual level and smaller scale to provide those opportunities. Often. Difficult.
It's the only way these students will leave us with the skills to be independent learners.
The hypothesis raised was this: "What is the group of students who have the highest frequency of under-achievement?" After some thought, the suggestion put forward was "Students achieving at Level 4".
Rather interesting proposal...
But first some ground-rules.
1. Post title - 'Smart' Kids: Obviously a terrible label to put on anyone. It's far too primitive a classification to use on something as complex and multi-faceted as intelligence. But for the next few paragraphs, let's just assume that I meant students who are in no risk of failing to rise to the Ministry Content Standard at a high Level 3 or Level 4 achievement. Everyone is smart. We're going to allow us to use this narrow definition for now.
2. Under-Achievement: Here's where the meat of the issue is. Under Achievement in the industrial age is evaluated against a common benchmark. 'Sub-standard' is term that may illustrate this idea. But we're in a world of Differentiated Instruction and Board Mission statements with some flavour of "Students Rising to Their Potential", we could consider Under-Achievement being evaluated against the student's potential for learning. (student's, not students').
So the challenge in the hypothesis - ignoring for now the difficulty in ever proving it - is to address students' true learning needs at an individual level. So what does a student achieving at level 2 need? Probably some assistance with learning skills to help them gain strategies to achieve in the content area. What does a student achieving at level 3 need? Work to consolidate their learning and maintain or increase their achievement levels. What does a student achieving at level 4 need? Challenge opportunities to deepen their understanding.
How it can play out, however, is that the challenge and extension opportunities for students achieving at level 3 and 4 are not robust enough and certainly not as urgent as the needs of the struggling student. Even in an ideal situation where the teacher is motivated to provide those opportunities, there are forces at play that weaken the learning opportunity for the standard-achieving student.
First - time and attention is clearly being focussed on the struggling learner. Again and again we focus on strategies for the At-Risk student and target-to-move students who are struggling to reach standard. We set marker students to evaluate research activity and often these are students with content difficulties. This is to be expected and is good sound practice. Still, challenging all learners is time-consuming.
Second, though - the practice of challenging students at standard has a prickly surface. It is not always easy to require students to go beyond what the other students are doing as criticisms can come from all sides - students being challenged, other students, parents. Add to that the fact that many of the curricular expectations within courses don't explicitly indicate a high enough depth of complexity or difficulty to challenge some of these students. So in order to actually challenge them, you have to work beyond the curriculum. That can mean you're struggling for access to resources and possibly 'working without a net' when it comes to justifying evaluation and instructional activities.
However, referring to my previous post "Self-Regulation as primary mission", if we consider the attainment of skills in regulating learning as important enough for all learners, it's imperative that we challenge all learners to the brink of frustration to grant them the opportunities to learn these skills.
And here's where the danger lies. Without those opportunities to be challenged with difficult things to learn, the opportunities to gain Self-Regulated Learning skills don't have the opportunity to truly develop. Certainly students achieving at Level 4 often have a grasp on strategies for getting through the work, but to truly dive deeply into your own learning and understanding the process, one has to be faced with challenges that forces investigation into one's learning.
A simple example of this is the student who achieves high marks through high school and goes to university, only to find out that they really don't know how to study for exams. Or to prepare a large-scale assignment in an area they don't yet understand and struggle with. It could be said that a student who struggled in high school is better equipped to tackle difficult learning because they've had to do it more and have been in the position of using a wider variety of strategies to drive their learning most successfully. Perhaps they've been given the language to articulate their learning strategies whereas a standard-achieving student hasn't really had to pay attention to that.
So what's to be done?
Lest we simply check the standard-achieving students as 'good-to-go', they need to have truly challenging opportunities. Learning Challenges will provide the opportunity to realize Self-Regulated Learning. The concept of the 'Wicked' problems - generally large-scale rich tasks - should be brought to an individual level and smaller scale to provide those opportunities. Often. Difficult.
It's the only way these students will leave us with the skills to be independent learners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)