does it mean rigorous?


BY STEPHEN DARE, HEAD OF SCHOOL


and the average test scores students achieve. Whilst homework and external assessments are indeed aspects of the HKA learning culture, I am concerned that elevating these two components creates a somewhat limited interpretation of rigour.


Loading students up with lots of homework doesn’t mean more learning. Instead, it can inhibit the teacher’s ability to observe how a student has worked through a process and, for some, it may even communicate the message that we don’t trust the students to make decisions about how they want to use their time. Using test scores to measure rigour is equally problematic, as test scores are a snap shot of student performance and growth and say little about the broader ongoing purpose and process of education.


In the traditional classroom, the teacher is positioned as the font of all knowledge, ready to fill students with information. In this setting there is a strong case for relating levels of rigour to the amount of course content covered. However, technology has reduced the monopoly on knowledge and changed the role of independent agents of information. Due to both the growing body of research about the brain and learning and the changing characteristics of the most highly skilled professions, we now must talk about collective as well as individual intelligence, and we have the opportunity to think about how individuals fit into broader learning communities. We want students who know stuff, but we also want students to be critical about the information they absorb, to think creatively and to innovate


in a variety of contexts. We want problem- finders as much as problem-solvers, effective communicators, team players, self-managers, researchers and thinkers who are prepared to contribute to the broader community.


So what is rigour in an inclusive learning environment? At a recent information evening, I offered the following definition:


“Rigour is the goal of helping students develop their individual capacity to understand content and approach dilemmas that are complex, ambiguous and provocative, and to take action based on personal relevance.”


This statement provides HKA with three facets of rigour and inclusion that can support ongoing programme development and ways to look at success. It has less to do with how demanding the material is that the teacher covers, and more to do with what competencies students have acquired and how inclined they are to use them.


Individual capacity in a rigorous and inclusive environment is highly personalized and encourages students to self-manage, self-monitor and self-modify.


We approach problems based on our strengths and challenges. Students who know their strengths and challenges will know how to stretch, and they’ll know when they’re “coasting”. It’s the same for teachers. In educational jargon, that’s called the zone of proximal development. If you’d like more information about that, let’s talk!


Understanding is rigorous when students can explain things precisely, interpret information, apply what they have learned, identify different perspectives, demonstrate empathy and show clear self-knowledge about their own learning.


Personal Relevance in a rigorous environment is active and engaging, requiring students to process information to determine the degree of personal significance and interest. This, then, should encourage students to take decisions about appropriate action and reflect on the action taken. In a rigorous setting, tolerance trumps acceptance so that the student voice and opinion is clearly heard.


The world is changing rapidly, and with it our need for flexibility and the capacity to adapt to our environment. Information, homework and test-taking are now only pieces of the learning puzzle. In order to be truly rigorous and effectively embrace the opportunities of uncertainty, we need to be ready to personalize learning, think of teaching for understanding in a broader context and engage students as architects in the learning process. Once we begin to see the bigger picture of what we mean by rigour, we can then return to the question, “How rigorous is HKA?”


Source: The Rhetoric of Rigour in Ideas and Perspectives, Vol 39 No. 12


3


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20