For any of you playing around with the concept of student agency in a PYP school, you will likely know the stress and struggle of trying to negotiate the interplay between what students want to learn, with what teachers, schools, and systems have decided they have to learn.
Much cognitive dissonance and feelings of hypocrisy stem from standing in front of students saying “You own your own learning! We trust you! Follow your own passions, interests and curiosities!…… buuuuut make sure you’re meeting the learning outcomes that have been pre-determined for you in the units we have designed for you within the timelines we have set for you.”
Much frustration also stems from walking around and seeing the students “not doing what they’re supposed to be doing” – regardless of autonomy over where they learn, when they learn, how they learn, who they learn with, how they share their learning… at the end of the day – if you look through the layers of choice – we are still expecting them to learn what we want them to learn.
So can we blame them if they don’t care as much as we do?
Anytime we as teachers sit behind closed doors in planning meetings and design units for our students and then “hand the unit over to the students” we run the risk of pseudo-agency…. where we are saying students have ownership of their learning, but don’t really. Or don’t fully.
And although it feels better than the traditional approach to education (because students are experiencing more choice than normal)… it still doesn’t feel quite right. And it makes you very hesitant to use words like “agency”.
Even when my team and I have tried to design a unit that is concept-based with a very open central idea that offers as much content choices as possible, at the end of the day we find that it is still too teacher planned… too teacher controlled… too teacher driven.
So we’ve decided to stop planning their units of inquiry.
And instead, start helping them to plan their own units of inquiry.
At first we were going start the way many PYPXs start… by showing the students a Transdisciplinary Theme and asking them which part they are most interested in.
But then we decided that was not good enough. So we decided that we were going to try and flip that process.
As our PYP Coordinator says: Child first. Curriculum second.
We are still in the early phases of planning this process, but we’ve begun to brainstorm some ideas.
Here is what we know so far:
- We are going to be transparent with our students about our frustrations regarding pseudo-agency within a UOI
- We are going to share Daniel Pink’s work about motivation and admit that although autonomy is in place, mastery and purpose are lacking (our fault)
- We are going to take time to support students to identify their passion/purpose/interest
- We are going to find/develop puroseful processes to help students do this
- We are going to help students bend the Transdisciplinary Themes around their passion/purpose/interest
- We are going to go through the process ourselves first
- We are going to create a student-friendly PYP bubble planner (based around the guiding questions for “Planning the Inquiry” and also “Reflecting on the Inquiry”)
- We are going to help students to set their own UOI timelines
Is this true agency?
But are we getting closer?
It sure feels like it!
Any maybe that’s the best we can do for now – within the current constraints we have as a PYP school.
(Until we’re ready as a PYP community to critically look at and break the mould of needing “units” in the first place…dun dun dun!)
Wish us luck!