9 myths about evaluation

Dianne Newman and Robert Brown (1996) have inspected myths related to ethics. Let’s delve straight into the topic by checking out these myths.

  • Personal ethical perfection precedes serious ethical thinking
    But that’s simply impossible, so one shouldn’t expect to become ethically perfect ever
  • Ethics is just valuing one’s values and all values are equal
    Some values are better and more universal than others
  • When crossing with conflicts, direct guidelines are found in professional ethics
    Professional ethics doesn’t present answers to every dilemma
  • Ethical ponderings belong to committees, authorities and so forth
    Nope, anyone can and should chip in
  • Some are just more ethical than others
    Anyone can learn to be ethical, it’s not a skill you’re just ‘born with’
  • Large problems are most important due to the fact they bring up ethical discussions into limelight
    But large problems start from smaller ones, so in order to be anticipatory one should stay alert and be willing to intervene in ethical misconducts — whatever the magnitude
  • Ethical evaluation means that people are first and foremost evaluated 
    Not necessarily, since also programs or any material component could be evaluated (people are now and then sensitive when it comes to evaluation, so it’s important to let them know about the procedure)
  • There’s no time for ethical pondering
    Sometimes it’s merely an excuse for walking away from responsibilities
  • Ethical vs. practical
    Ethics is somehow pitted against of being practical, while in reality both may exist at the same time and ethics should be seen as important for evolution’s sake

About evaluation principles

Newman and Brown (1996) have presented a helpful principle for evaluation: Evaluate as you’d like to be evaluated yourself. Let’s check out more of their principles for evaluation.

  1. Autonomy. Normally autonomy is seen as a negative right, right? 😉
    But autonomy can also be seen as positive, right for something. In a way, autonomy of pupils is greatly damaged in school evaluation: They usually don’t have say are they evaluated or not. Yet, by developing self-assesment, we can offer a path for pupils to have an impact on how they are evaluated
    (more about this in future posts).
  2. Avoiding harm. Teacher, especially in a school environment, has a lot of pedagogical power. Thus, teachers should avoid unneccessary side-effects of evaluation by weighing which evaluation methods maximize positive impacts.
    And one should keep in mind that pupils’ mental harm, stress wouldn’t rise too high as a result of evaluation(s).
  3. Doing good. Evaluation might feel cruel and repressive use of power. Especially since pupils are only just developing their self-esteem. Some pupils have the notion that a well-performing student equals a ‘good’ person. And through evaluation teachers might label someone as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. That’s a responsibility not to be taken lightly.
  4. Fairness. Equal, non-favoring and multiple angles incorporating evaluation is the key.
  5. Loyalty. Teacher should be trustworthy and accountable, that’s a given. But one might question loyalty when considering expectations of a pupil, parents, community, country etc. Where should teacher’s loyalty first and foremost lay?

Important values in evaluation

Evaluation is an extremely important aspect of teaching. That’s why I’ve decided to dedicate next few posts to the theme. Let’s start with important values in evaluation according to Race, Brown and Smith (2005). Evaluation should be:

  • Ethically fair and just. While learning experiences among pupils aren’t similar, in principle each pupil should have the same opportunities to excel. A teacher ought to make use of various evaluation methods so that no group in particular would be favored and that everyone could find a way to prove their skills.
    For instance using oral exams, portfolios etc. not only written exams.
  • Valid and reliable. In this case valid means that teachers evaluate only what they really wish to evaluate. If we are evaluating problem-solving skills we shouldn’t focus on clerical errors.
    Relibiality means the ability to avoid chance. A pupil’s exam results can’t rest on how tired teacher was when checking the exams (easier said than done 🙂 ).
  • Transparent. Pupils should be aware of evaluation methods and those methods must be in line with the curriculum. No guessing is needed when the criteria is clear, and that means less stress for the pupils as well.
  • Motivate to learn more. Pupils shouldn’t be encouraged to memorize everything just exam purposes. Rather, to plan their learning ahead. Jointly with teacher, if possible.
  • Demanding and enable excellence. Finding the balance where pupils are expected not too little and not too much is tricky. A teacher should generate a great empathy level and understanding about the character and skills of each pupil. In any case pupils are so individual that differentiated learning is a good goal (naturally depends on resources).

Everyday life decision-making simulation — a case of inclusive teaching

I’ve been developing an idea concerning everyday life decision-making, to be executed in a form of a simulation during a series of consecutive school lessons. In general the dilemmas with simulations are, in my experience, that they offer a venue first and foremost for enthusiasts. For instance I’ve been a part of couple European parliament simulations in which we dealt with vast issues like youth unemployment and democratic deficit. Moreover, the simulations were thematically linked to an intergovernmental organisation that might feel distant to young pupils.

That’s why I’ve been thinking about a simulation that would be more ‘down to earth’ and better connected with the pupils’ everyday life. The grand idea behind this kind of simulation is that instead of teaching (or preaching) about the importance of various democratic approaches and voting in general level, we would offer pupils a chance to gather experience firsthand how decision-making could work — though a pragmatic case example.

How often you see a teacher asking what would the pupils like to be taught about? Teachers might teach the importance of certain ‘democracy’, but how much of that you see realized inside a class room? Teaching is still unneccessarily fixed on formal politics where individual’s opportunities to influence are quite limited. Therefore, through simulation we would be empowering individuals so that they might realize they have a say and an actual effect how things play out.

This particular simulation would aim to 1) create greater inclusion, 2) focus on practical issues, 3) improve empathy,
4) develop negotiation and argument skills.

Everyday life decision-making

  • Concentrates on practical issues, for instance deciding about something related to school or its surroundings
  • Something to ponder about: Could pupils design a lesson? How much freedom should pupils have?
    1st lesson
  • The simulation starts from selecting an everyday topic
    (if it would impossible to choose, teacher could help to choose a topic)
  • Lesson continues with selecting roles: each individual/pair etc. would either represent an interest group (empathy practice) or just be themselves (argument practice)
    2nd lesson
  • Then everyone would prepare arguments based on the choice made during the previous phase and gather material to help to form an opinion
    3rd lesson
  • We would discuss, debate, agree/disagree and perhaps ultimately reach a compromise on the agenda

Finally, I still argue that schools should do much more to improve inclusive teaching. Too many pupils feel left out e.g. when a teacher designs lessons. If we never include pupils in teaching why should they care to participate later on?

 

Here’s how the most modern school in Finland looks like

The Teacher Training School located in Turku has over 1000 pupils as well as teachers and staff around 140. Further, around 170 subject teacher students intern there yearly. What’s more, this school in particular is rather international since one can hear around 40 languages there.

Both Finnish and English are official teaching languages as pupils may eventually graduate with an International Baccalaureate degree. Due to its diversity with people and school levels, the school offers great experience for a subject teacher student. But without further ado, let’s take a look on the school.

WP_20170925_09_49_03_Pro
Sitting in pairs or groups is often preferred when teachers modify layouts for classes. Additionally, group-working is emphasized in order to enhance social and interaction skills. Tables with wheels mean that it’s easy to organize the class to one’s liking.
WP_20170925_11_25_29_Pro
Out with the old, in with the new: touchscreen-enabled smartboards are becoming de facto displays in each class. Teachers often use e.g. video material during lessons. Yet, notice the three kinds of boards from different ages — there are still options to choose from.
WP_20170925_12_53_10_Pro
Each floor has common areas where one may study, hang around etc. Also openness is appreciated as instead of wide walls some classes have visible glass walls.
WP_20170925_12_53_27_Pro
Common areas also include various tables where pupils may work on assignments. Instead of studying the whole time inside the class, with permission of teachers pupils may do assignments outside the class. Consequently, flexibility and a change of scenery is valued.

Comments and thoughts welcome 🙂

 

Teachers and the Comenius’ Oath – what’s the deal?

Since early 2017 we have had a teacher’s oath called ‘Comenius’ Oath’ in Finland. Among the first to take the oath was actually Hanan al Hroub, who was awarded with Global Teacher Prize in 2016. Comenius’ Oath is named after Education Philosopher Johan Comenius who lived in the 17th century in Europe. Similarly than medical doctors’ Hippocratic Oath, this oath in question gives ethical guidelines on how to act in teacher’s profession. By no means is it mandatory to take nor is it a requirement in teacher’s work. Everyone is free to choose.
But let’s check out the oath:

‘As a teacher I am engaged in educating the next generation, which is one of the most important human tasks. My aim in this will be to renew and pass on the existing reserve of human knowledge, culture and skills.
I undertake to act with justice and fairness in all that I do and to promote the development of my pupils and students, so that each individual may grow up as a complete human being in accordance with his or her aptitudes and talents.
I will also strive to assist parents, guardians and others responsible for working with children and young people in their educational functions.
I will not reveal information that is communicated to me confidentially, and I will respect the privacy of children and young people. I will also protect their physical and psychological inviolability. I will endeavour to shield the children and young people in my care from political and economic exploitation and defend the rights of every individual to develop his or her own religious and political convictions.
I will make continuous efforts to maintain and develop my professional skills, committing myself to the common goals of my profession and to the support of my colleagues in their work. I will act in the best interests of the community at large and strive to strengthen the esteem in which the teaching profession is held.’

What do you think about the oath?

 

7 multidisciplinary learning aspects teachers in Finland must pay attention to

According to the newest Finnish basic education curriculum from 2016, every teacher needs to pay attention to certain important general skills and incorporate them into teaching, regardless of the subjects they teach. Let’s go through those skills.

1. Learning to care of yourself and everyday skills

This is something schools are often said overlooking. Teachers need to make sure pupils learn for life, not (just) for school. In my opinion, coping with life is one of greatest lessons schools can offer. And one can only wonder the vexed question: Where’s the balance between theoretical and practical knowledge?

2. Thinking and learning to learn

It’s always pivotal to learn to think for yourself, not just follow others and trends. If a society is to evolve, someone needs to be the pioneer with new ideas. Additionally, with teacher’s support one should discover the best way that advances learning.

3. Cultural skills, interaction and learning self-expression

Interaction, group skills and problem-solving are deeply advocated by the newest curriculum. In theory the more there’s interaction, the less there’s distrust, exclusion and xenophobia.

4. Multiliteracy

Information flow is growing rapidly and pupils are exposed to various interest groups. That’s why one should learn to filter it and distinguish ‘fact’ from ‘fiction’. I’ve been thinking about a course model that revolves around the idea on how to identify false/correct sources. Needless to say though, multiliteracy needs to evolve leaps and bounds from the current level.

5. Information and communication technology

Schools are in the midst of a technology revolution that seems never-ending. Some teachers are uncertain how to use new technology, when and how much. And how much new technology really helps learning? Are old teaching methods abandoned too easily?

6. Working life and entrepreneurship

Closely connected to ‘everyday skills’, working life shouldn’t stay too distant from pupils. Let’s not forget creativity: Could pupils start a fictional company? In any case, it’s a good lesson of how to think a little bit ahead.

7. Participation and bulding a sustainable future

Pupils should be introduced to various ways of how to influence near and far as well as be encouraged to find suitable ways for them. Not e.g. by creating a bad conscience of events happened in the past, but through real interest. In the end teachers have to ponder, how practical and close to everyday life teaching about participation can be.

Comments welcome 🙂

Phenomenon-based teaching – is Finland scrapping subject teaching in schools?

Phenomenon-based teaching or teaching by topic means that instead of simply teaching various subjects separately in schools we teach broader themes and topics, which cross subject limits. For instance teaching about United Nations and inspecting it through history, religion, geography, math etc. simultaneously. Or teaching about money and how to spend it: first going through history how money has become a currency for transactions, then inspecting it with moral values and philosophy. And further pondering in math how to save money by calculating interest rates.

Independent raised a small storm some time ago by suggesting ‘Finland schools: Subjects scrapped and replaced with ‘topics’ as country reforms its education system‘. Finnish National Agency for Education was quick to respond: ‘Subject teaching in Finnish schools is not being abolished‘. Yet, in the statement it was acknowledged that while teachers in Finland have a wide liberty carrying out teaching, phenomen-based teaching is emphasized in the new curriculum that came into effect in 2016. Pupils should already participate each year in at least one multidisciplinary learning module that contains teaching by topic.

The benefits of phenomen-based teaching include that instead of memorizing facts and figures or accepting knowledge ‘as it is’, we’d focus more into understanding, analysing and interpreting phenomenas. Additionally, pupils should not just think based on the subject which lesson they are in, but rather connect things they learn through multiple subjects.

What makes the Finnish school system different from the US?

Business Insider Nordic recently published an article ‘7 reasons Finland’s education system puts the US model to shame‘ that covers a comparison between the two’s basic education systems. Similar articles have been previously written as well, for instance by The GuardianFinland has an education system the US should envy – and learn from‘ and Business Insider4 reasons Finland’s schools are better‘. Naturally, it’s never as simple as these articles would have you to believe.

So let’s examine the differences between American and Finnish basic education systems. I’ll go through 7 claims that were presented in the Business Insider Nordic’s comparison article.

1. Competition isn’t as important as cooperation

Partly true. Finland has basically no private schools for basic education. And pretty much the only standardized test is matriculation exam that we have in senior high school at age 18/19.
But after 1998’s school district reform parents have been able to sort of ‘choose’ in which school does their child initially go (parental choice). According to some educational experts that has been one of the reasons leading to rising inequality and competition between Finnish schools. As a consequence, parents try to get their child to a school that has a better reputation. Additionally, some schools compete by offering courses in less-spoken languages than English, such as German, in order to attract pupils (though it’s also a question of resources as not every additional course is viable in small schools).

2. Teaching is one of the most-respected professions

Might well be, but difficult to measure. At least class teacher education is one of the most popular subjects in Finnish universities. In the University of Turku almost as much as people applied for it than for medicine in 2017.
Further, all eligible teachers have a Master’s Degree, aside from kindergarten teachers who have a Bachelor’s Degree. Teachers are paid average wages in Finnish scale, but high on global scale (around 3000 euros depending on the school level, plus e.g. service increments based on how many years one has been a teacher).

3. Finland listens to the research

Depends, difficult to measure. There are various types of ‘research’, it’s not a one kind of entity and surely some research institutions have agendas that stem from different ideologies. Also for sure political decision-making affects to a degree. So it’s all relative how well things compare to other countries. Yet, I’d conclude by saying that some things are decided based on thorough research, others not.

4. Finland isn’t afraid to experiment

Holds true in some aspects, I’d say. At least in the teacher training we are encouraged to try out different teaching styles and not just copy existing teaching models. Also basic education curriculum gives much freedom for teaching methods. Though some teachers might be fed up with their work and have lost their interest to experiment so in the end it’s highly individual how experimenting plays out.

5. Playtime is sacred

True. As it’s stated in the article, Finnish law requires teachers to give students 15 minutes of play for every 45 minutes of school lessons. There are studies that suggest 15 minute recesses improve learning (study found here). And in general the attitude that ‘kids should stay as kids as long as possible’ is evident in the society.

6. Kids have very little homework

True, one of the lowest amount globally. It’s also verified in OECD study: In average Finnish pupils (in all schools) spend 2.8 hours per week doing homework, while e.g. in Australia it’s 6.0, in USA 4.9 and in Vietnam 5.8. On top of that Finnish pupils enjoy long, 10-11 week summer holidays, which enforces the idea of appreciating leisure.

7. Preschool is high-quality and universal

Partly verifiablePreschool and daycare are both universal until age 7. Quality is subjective though, for some it works better than others.

Finally, I’ll be making an article on things that Finland could learn from the US education system so stay tuned 🙂

Finnish schools are dissolving traditional division to girls and boys

Based on the newest curriculum concerning basic education Finnish National Agency for Education (Opetushallitus) has released a guide how schools should take into account gender variations, which these days transcend girl and boy centric approaches. Gender-conscious teaching means that teachers are sensitive in recognising individuality and personality of each pupil, regardless of their background. In practice this means that teachers guide pupils to make individual choices instead of maintaining segregation in education and job market.

This line of thought also includes that teachers should acknowledge there are more genders than two and therefore pupils shouldn’t be only recognised as boys and girls. Recognising various sexual orientations and a multitude of identities is crucial in teaching as it helps to break stereotypes, prejudism and broadens one’s understanding.

The key is to realize that any person can become anything. A gender or being genderless shouldn’t dictate one’s life choices. That’s why teachers should encourage pupils pursue their abilities despite of deep cultural assumptions how one ‘should behave’. As with any possible topic teachers should be aware and be willing to discuss about new fields which might not be that known to them. Thus we achieve better level of inclusion among pupils.

Anything to comment?