In my first post I have asked myself a myriad of questions
regarding education and my role within it. One of these questions was frankly a
painful one because never before had I questioned the IB Middle Years
Programme.
My deep appreciation for the MYP is strongly linked to my
experience as a student, which was mostly based on memorization and
content. I can still reminisce the
time where, as a 14 year old, I doodled aimlessly as time elapsed at an
agonizingly slow pace. I’m sure many can relate to such scenario especially
those who like me grew up in a bleak, rigid educational British system. Having
said that, I still cherish happy memories from this time such as the nicknames
we gave teachers, the pranks we played on them and the endless hours chasing a
football during PE class. Now that
I look back, I am cognizant that these were happy moments indeed because they
were a distraction from the mundane boredom of the “core” classes.
Joe Bonnici as a student was clueless. In fact, I never really understood how
one could score full points on assignments because there was not such thing as
a criterion. My tests and assignments were a hit and miss. Some grades were
high and others were average; however, I could not really tell the difference
between the two. I never could articulate what made my essays in Italian “good”
and my science labs “bad”. I was
fully aware of my strong linguistic skills since I could read and write fluently
in three different languages yet I could not make a clear distinction between
grade boundaries. To me
success on test-taking was as random as winning cash on a slot machine. There
were no skills involved; in my head this was all driven by fate. This
misconception ultimately stifled my meta-cognition and made me a passive
learner.
Some years later, in my first real teaching post, I crossed
paths with the MYP. This was challenging and mind blowing.
Before my first teaching experience the explicit teaching of skills had been a
foreign notion to me. For instance, I was unaware that there was a specific
format required to write paragraphs, which a included topic, developing,
supporting and concluding sentences. What now seems basic, back then was unknown
to me. In fact, I had to learn these skills as I taught my students. I soon
realized that my students were being given a toolbox, which would allow them to
be more independent learners.
Moreover, the subject criteria and rubrics allowed me to
give meaningful feedback to students. Once again, this was a paradigm shift for
me. Since I had not been exposed to rubrics before, it took me nearly two years
to truly get my head around the distinct features of the criteria. Once, I managed
to familiarize with the criteria, I could set more straightforward and clear
assessment task sheets; I could give meaningful feedback to students; Students
could genuinely reflect on their strengths and areas of improvement with the
help of the level descriptors of the task specific-rubric. This was indeed an
eye-opener for me as I could see in my students what I had lacked some years
before: My students were more aware of their own learning and hence were able
to play a more active role in their own education.
As I continued my ongoing professional development over the
years I became more familiar with concept-based learning. I came to appreciate
how an understanding of a concept is indeed a higher form of learning as it
allows for transfer and application of knoweldge. Through the modeling of solid
teaching, I was able to figure out that traditional Humanities content did not
drive a unit plan; instead it was the concepts such as sustainability, systems,
conflict and many more. This was yet another paradigm shift for me that forced
me to scrap my traditional Humanities unit plans. I understood that there was
no sense in teaching three ancient civilizations units in one year because they
did not allow for a genuine flow of relevant concepts. Most importantly, they
did not make learning for my students relevant. These units were hence replaced
with relevant global issues such as poverty, water scarcity and global warming
which served a better purpose for concept-based learning, hence enabling
students to address real world problems.
I chose this profession because I wanted to push my students
to be active, independent learners. Even though this will sound rather cliché,
I see the adolescent me in my students and I feel it is my responsibility to
expose them to purposeful learning experience because I owe it to my 14-
year-old self. It is clear that The MYP has given me the philosophy to deliver
such a learning experience, but now I am starting to ask questions.
One crucial problem that I see is that most MYP schools
still choose to offer a traditional schedule with 8 different subjects. I
believe that this model smothers meaningful interdisciplinary learning and the
authenticity in assessments.
Innovation is currently one of the big buzzwords in education
and rightfully so. In a time of global economical and environmental dilemmas we
need our current student body to be conscientious global citizens who can be
resourceful and creative problem-solvers.
Education literature highlights the essence in exposing our students to
real-world problems and encouraging them to partake in the creation of
solutions to the aforementioned dilemmas. For instance, students should be
understanding not only the implications of water scarcity but also create real
world solutions that target a real world audience, such as the creation of
economic water filtration systems that could be used in the poor slum areas of
Peru. However, this is frustratingly hard to achieve when you have a system
that forces students to work on six to eight simultaneous assignments.
Let us empathize for a second with these kids. How realistic
is it in the real world to work simultaneously on eight separate projects? I
personally would loathe such scenario. Empathy is another buzzword in
education, but it seems that we educators sometimes struggle to empathize with
our students. Frankly, if I were trying to juggle six projects all at once, I
would inevitably be required to prioritize and tackle the others only at a
superficial level. This would eventually make me lose my drive to learn.
Another issue I face in Humanities is that at times as we
tackle real world issues, we are limited by the boundaries of the subjects’
objectives. At times students require scientific and engineering skills that
are not currently taught in Humanities. I could indeed plan an
interdisciplinary unit with my Science and Design Technology colleagues, but
this would encounter obvious logistical issues and all teachers would need to
be on board with this. This is not to say that such an undertaking would be
impossible because I am sure that there are teachers out there who have created
effective interdisciplinary units, but it is indisputably counterintuitive to
continue persisting on an outdated model that separates knowledge into
distinct, stand-alone components. When people in the real world are faced with
real dilemmas, they are required to use a transdisciplinary combination of
skills. So once again, what is the logic behind our traditional scheduling in
education in a current context where we are striving to innovate and ameliorate
our pedagogy?
When I talked to my MYP coordinator he made a valid point:
the Middle Years Programme simply gives you a framework; it does not impose
scheduling boundaries. While I agree with this statement, I still question the
IB’s approach on this matter. If one of the main objectives for this programme
is indeed interdisciplinary learning, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to push schools
to be bolder and create more customized and fluid schedules. Humanities and
Design Technology could easily merge for one semester into a Global Issues
course where students avail themselves of the indispensable critical skills
taught in humanities while using the design cycle to create an authentic
product. Design Technology
could then team up with Science in the second semester whereas Humanities would
blend with English. I do
understand that such an undertaking would be daunting to say the least; however
with some pragmatism and resourcefulness it could be a realistically achievable
objective. Rather than being be
limited by a 90-minute or even worse a 45-minute period schedule, students
could take advantage of a more significant chunk of time to truly delve in
their work and be productive.
I believe that we inevitably tend to question the ideas and
models in which we have an investment. The Middle Years Programme is a
framework that has indeed allowed me to grow as a learner. I struggle to
envision myself working in a different educational programme because I have
grown fond of it. However, I believe it is time for the IB to become bolder. It
is time that we all, the different stakeholders of the educational community,
cease to be shortsighted and start to look beyond preparing our students for
university. We all have to be held accountable in making a more considerable
effort to put into practice the ideas we so passionately discuss in
professional development seminars. It is daunting I agree. The unfamiliarity of
a revolutionary and fluid schedule of interdisciplinary subjects frightens my
linear and structured self. But it is time we get out of our comfort zone; after
all, isn’t that what innovation is all about?
