Creating economic capital through knowledge building

‘If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance’

It has been argued that all human learning was an ‘epistemic’ or ‘knowledge building’ activity and definitely social, so learning is not only for the individual but also creates economic growth for the community. This social dimension cannot account for all learning, as some ‘knowledge building’ cannot be achieved through experience alone, such as the development of concepts, which can take learners beyond their own experiences, cannot be developed in a ‘hands on manner’.  Bandura argues that learning is a cognitive process that takes place in a social context and can occur purely through observation or direct instruction. If human knowledge is not recognised as a knowledge building activity which involves epistemic and social knowledge then we create the false dichotomy of the skills and knowledge debate. In this debate, knowledge is often equated with facts rather than concepts which confuses the issue. If the skills versus knowledge debate is rephrased as ‘knowing how’ and ‘knowing that’ then it becomes apparent that they are interdependent. This ties in with educators such as Dewey and Piaget who through looking at how we learn, came to understand that knowledge building and experiential learning are strongly linked and thus their emphasis on experience-based learning.

UNSECO (1996) defines the four pillars of learning to be ‘learning to know’, learning to do’, ‘learning to be’ and ‘learning to live together’. These pillars now need to be re-integrated taking account of the new social dynamics created by the use of the internet, as a source of information and as a community builder. Social networks tends to be built by people with similar values and in these social networks ‘groupthink’ can become prevalent, thus increasing intolerance to those with different value systems and beliefs. It is easy to avoid those with differing values in the virtual world and thus society is splitting into ‘incompatible public spaces’ where it is easy to excommunicate an individual with the click of an ‘unfriend’ button. Not only is the digital age changing our social dynamics but also the way we learn. As information has become more available to society and everyone is encouraged to be creators of knowledge, we have moved from transmission of knowledge to being more about sharing and creating knowledge. Thus ‘learning to know’ has changed to accommodate the use of technology and we need to work harder on ‘learning to be’ and ‘learning to live together’ in a rapid paced and changing society.

So what do this mean for schools and learning?

The launch in 2014 of the Developing the Young Workforce Scotland’s Youth Employment Strategy signposted the investment of the Scottish government, in growing the number of opportunities for young people to be involved in “work-based learning which is valued by both employers and young people” (p5). This context dependent (vocational) learning serves a different purpose from context-independent (academic) learning, and is also different in structure by being more spontaneous by the learning within the work place, rather than a more prescribed curriculum. Context dependent learning has over time proved itself more successful to support skills development. The opportunities to develop skills on-the-job are valued but in the digital age, less apprenticeships were available for school leavers, thus a key performance indicator of Developing the Young Workforce is to increase the number of modern apprenticeships available for students transitioning from secondary school.

Context dependent learning as part of an apprenticeship could be considered a form of collaborative enquiry. The apprentice immerses themselves in an active learning environment and within this they experience learning and methodology to achieve relevant outcomes. Learners then explore and undertake critical reflection of their experiences so they can apply this learning in new contexts. This process can be described in the following questions;

·         What do I want to ask?

·         What am I going to do?

·         What happened?

·         What’s important?

·         What work for me?

In contrast to context-dependent learning, in creating context-independent (academic) learning opportunities which allows learners to move beyond their everyday context and helps them to think conceptually, could be described as one of the purpose of schools.

A second purpose of school could lie within the transmission of knowledge through organisation of knowledge (curriculum) and giving knowledge context so it builds on schema (pedagogy).

‘Learning to do’ is no longer about acquisition and internalisation of practical knowledge; instead, it is about the ability to create and invent practically relevant knowledge. Epistemic literacy and critical thinking requires active knowledge creation and innovation. Knowledge can be contemplated in two domains. New knowledge; which could be considered as research and transmission of knowledge, which can be thought of as acquisition of specialised knowledge, and epistemic literacy; which is using both new knowledge and specialist knowledge to understand, integrate and create meaning which allows us to make sense of the world. Contexts for knowing i.e. the systems and structures that support learning, will become reconstructed but in the absence of epistemic literacy, i.e. critical reflective, we can be held hostage to ‘dogmas, orthodoxies and fashions’ of the time.

So if human learning requires both context-dependent and context-independent learning then schools must evolve to accommodate both. In the foreword of Developing the Young Workforce, then Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills & Training, Roseanna Cunningham MSP states that Scotland needs “a fundamental examination of how we provide, promote, and value a range of learning which leads to a wide variety of jobs.” Supporting students to build economic capital through a variety of learning opportunities, whether that is vocational or academic learning is crucial to developing successful learners who can become effective contributors in Scotland.

References

Bandura – Social Learning Theory

http://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html

Biesta, G. (2015) what is education for? On Good Education, Teacher Judgement and Educational Professionalism; European Journal of Education, Vol 50, No 1

Developing the Young Workforce: Scotland’s Youth Employment Strategy; Implementing the Recommendations of the Commission for Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce

http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/DYWResponseYouthEmpl%20Strategy_tcm4-853595.pdf

Monne, X.P. (2015) What is learning for? The Promise of a Better Future; European Journal of Education, Vol 50, No 1

Tuomi, I (2015) Epistemic Literacy or a Clash of Clans? A capability-bsed Veiw on the Furture of learning and Education; European Journal of Education, Vol 50, No 1

UNSECO (1996) Learning: The treasure within (Paris, UNSECO)

Young, M. (2015) what is learning and Why Does it matter? ; European Journal of Education, Vol 50, No 1

Spirals of Inquiry

Doing some reading about enquiry models, I had previously read about the ‘Spirals of Inquiry’ model. I attended a presentation at the ICSEI conference in January and was absolutely blown away with the presentation by Judy Halbert and Linda Kaser who delivered a session entitles ‘Knowledge exchange through inquiry networks: A BC perspective’. The book co-authored by Halbert and Kaser entitled “Spirals of Inquiry: for equity and equality” can be an informant to the Scottish context as the new narrative for Curriculum for Excellence in evolving to Curriculum for Excellence and Equity (CfEE). This enquiry model supports the aspirations of CfEE to inspire our young people to develop skills which will allow them to move forward in making their dreams a reality supported by enquiring practitioners. Learners need to remain curious and as Halbert and Kaser said at the presentation “all learners should leave more curious than they arrived”. As Halbert and Kaser state (p20);

”What is especially important from an equity perspective is that vulnerable learners experience the greatest positive impact in terms of both increased motivation and depth of learning”.

In order to realise our aspirations for our young people the teaching workforce must also be life-long learners and not just pay lip service to this. Practitioners should be curious about learning and think of themselves as “designers of learning” (p37) and how this can be transferred to learners through their teaching pedagogy to facilitate skills and knowledge development.

One of the key factors that affects young people’s learning ability is the belief that they can! Every young person needs a cheerleader, someone who is explicit in communicating positive belief and helping young people to develop resilience both as an individual but also resilience in their learning. Through being more resilient, young people can then develop a more independent way of learning, becoming agents of their own learning, and are confident they can learn and comment on the learning of others. This growth mindset stance is not only applicable for young people but also applies to practitioners, who must be willing to become an ‘adaptive expert’, Timperley (2011) and continually identify and modify their research enriched practice when needed to respond to the needs of their learners. Halbert and Kaser also discuss Timperley’s argument that engaging in inquiry and knowledge building cycles is one of the key ways to develop adaptive expertise and is at the core of professionalism (p63).

Having an ‘enquiry as stance’ Cochrane-Smith & Lyttle (2009) helps teachers to develop a deep understanding of the experiences of their learners and use this as the basis for informed professional learning. Professional learning for practitioners should be our core business, driven by learners needs as enquiry practitioners “allow for a range of outcomes and keep searching for increased understanding and clarity” (p11). Professional learning needs to be of high quality and includes time for practitioners to engage in professional dialogue so as to shape new knowledge and come to new understandings. Although attending conferences, workshops and events can help us reframe our understanding and perhaps give us insight into current educational thinking, professional learning has to be more than this. It has to support the practitioner in creating professional knowledge by engaging with new information that challenges their assumption and perhaps long held beliefs and supports the creation of new meanings. This can be a transformative experience as the old ways of learning and teaching are replaced by new research enriched pedagogy which is learner centric.

The ‘Spirals of Inquiry’ lays out an approach which helps practitioners to be focused on the pursuit of quality learning experiences for young people by asking questions of one’s own practice. The process of the ‘Spirals of Inquiry’ has six steps which overlap but at each step the following questions should be asked;

What’s going on for our learners?

How do we know?

Why does this matter?

 The first two questions keep the learners at the heart of the inquiry and the last question helps to ground the inquiry team as Halbert and Kaser state “productive inquiry focussed teams don’t rush”(p48).

 

The steps of the Spirals of Inquiry process are as follows;

1.    Scanning

The scanning phase involves collecting a variety of rich evidence and considering useful information in key areas of learning.

2.    Focusing

This phase is about gaining greater clarity about the situation for learners before deciding on a course of action. This involves listening to all the stakeholders in the situation to understand the differing perspectives before committing to actions.

3.    Developing a hunch

Developing a hunch involves reflecting on the ways in which professional practice may be contributing to the situation for the learners. It requires the team to stand back and take stock of the key driver in the situation for learners.

4.    New professional learning

This is the phase that advocates that practitioners should engage with research, as Halbert and Kaser state “the best innovation education solutions often draw on what is already known to develop something new that is consistent with sound theory and evidence” (p55). There are challenges within this phase which include ensuring that all practitioners have sufficient time to engage in new learning and that the professional learning is linked directly to their context with their learners in mind.

5.    Taking action

Taking action is the phase that everyone has been itching to get to. It is the jumping across the knowing-doing gap and trying out new practice with plenty of opportunity built in for dialogue, observation, reflection and the opportunity to take risks and learn from mistakes.

6.    Checking

The final phase of checking is the time to check that the difference made was ‘good’. The inquiry can only be thought of as ‘good’ if learner outcomes have improved. The key is to have a general agreement ahead of time about what evidence to look for and what constitutes enough of a difference, therefore using performance standards in both the scanning phase and the checking phase makes a lot of sense.  This phase is also the time for personal reflection for practitioners, who should think about what went well? What could have gone better and why? Then celebrate their achievements and work out how to build on these.

Sustained enquiry matters so practitioners can support young people get the best learning experiences possible. This also helps practitioners to continually evaluate and adapt their practice driven by the learning needs of the young people they work with. For this to be successful the enquiry teams need to be supported by their leadership teams but it would also be beneficial if they created a micro-network in Scotland to support each other. These enquiries would have to have a clear focus and purpose but can also be supported through advice from GTCS.

The Spirals of Inquiry network has a website which can be used for further information, http://noii.ca/spiral-of-inquiry/

 References

Halbert, J. & Kaser, L. (2013) Spirals of Inquiry – for equity and quality:The BC Principals & Vice Principal Association : Vancouver

Third Spaces

“Strengthen evaluation and research, including independent knowledge creation”

The above recommendations from the OECD report (2015) has had me thinking about partnership working, collaborations which has led me to the theory of the ‘third space'.

There can be tensions between academic researchers and the teaching profession as practitioner researchers when working in partnership or collaboration, for example, Who’s agenda take precedent? Who owns the new knowledge? This has led me to think about the creation of ‘third spaces’ (or hybrid spaces’) which will allow academic researchers and practitioner researchers to work together in a more sustainable way.

In order to overcome the tensions in the relationship between academic researchers and practitioner researchers, Hulme et al. (2009) have discussed the use of ‘third spaces’. ‘Third spaces’ redefine the professional stances of the academic researcher and practitioner researcher, and challenge the ‘established hegemonies’ and ‘competing cultural traditions’. Partnerships that currently exist between academic researchers and practitioner researchers can be successful, however, if we are to truly become research informed, we have to move beyond partnerships to create collaborative working spaces.

This notion of a ‘third space’ has been explored by many researchers. Soja (1996:57) developed the theory of ‘third space’ which was then used by Moje et al (2004:42) to conclude that through ‘third space’ activities ‘new knowledges’ can be generated.  Hulme et al. (2009) talk about the ‘third space’ as providing a “platform on which professionals from a variety of backgrounds can relate to each other at different levels of conversational complexity” (p538). Thus it can be considered as a ’neutral space’ and moving into this ‘neutral space’ allows academic researchers and practitioner researchers to challenge their own assumptions and to enquire into the unfamiliar. However, this can only be achieved as Hulme et al state (2009:541) “after social and individual identities have been partially surrendered or altered”. Hulme et al go on to discuss how identities of self are challenged as the partner researchers adopt a language of co-operation and collaboration, and the “co-construction of knowledge” (p539). This gives rise to an opportunity for the researchers to move “beyond ‘using reflective dialogue’ to ‘using generative dialogue’” Scharmer (2001). Hulme et al (2009:541) continue to say that ‘third spaces’ offers researchers a “safe, secure and supportive” place that “stands between the formal areas of practice”, offering places for collaboration and joint working to achieve the aims of the enquiry. Thus the ‘third space’ allows the researchers to reassess their usual ways of working and interacting and creates a joint working space to develop an ‘expanded professionalism’ moving beyond ‘silo thinking’ into a more collaborative co-creation. Zeichner (2010:92) describes this moving beyond their usual sphere as a “transformational setting” and so leads to closer collaboration with a common purpose, which then leads to a shared discourse.

So how do we create ‘third spaces’ for academic and practitioner researchers to co-create knowledge to support a more research enriched profession? Is there a case for a mediator who straddles the academic and professional worlds to support the creation and maintenance of the ‘third space’? Could this be a role for national bodies, professional associations or other independent bodies?

Once the third space is created how do we proceed? What ‘new knowledge’ do we need to create? The shared purpose of the ‘third space’ will help researches to build understanding and champion expansive learning.

What are the rules and norms of ‘third space’? How do we leave our histories at the door so we can co-create ‘new knowledge’? These will have to be negotiated in each unique ‘third space’ with each researcher compromising to support the shared purpose but without losing themselves and their experiences.

How do we share this ‘new knowledge’? Technologies already exist that would allow sharing of ‘new knowledge’ but we must never forget that teachers are ‘time poor’ and thus new knowledge needs to be expressed in ways that promotes the benefits of engaging with research in manageable packages.

‘Third space’ working can build on partnership working and move it to the next level. Although this appears straightforward, this co-creation of new knowledge in ‘third spaces’ is ambitious and requires commitment from all sectors of education, if we are to move forward to become a research enriched profession and improve the life chances of children in Scotland.

References

Hulme, R, Cracknell, D. & Owens, A. (2009) Learning in third spaces: developing trans-professional understanding through practitioner enquiry. Educational Action Research; Dec2009, Vol. 17 Issue 4, p537-550, 14p

 Improving Schools in Scotland: An OECD Perspective (2015)

http://www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/improving-schools-in-scotland.htm, last accessed 16-1-16

 Moje, E.B., Ceichanowski, K., Kramer, K. Ellis, L. Carrillo, R. & Collazo, T. (2004) Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-71

 Scharmer, O. (2001) Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing and organizing around emerging opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management 5, no. 2: 137–51.

 Soja, E.  (1996) Third space: Journeys to Los Angles and other real and imagined places (Malden, MA, Blackwell)

 Zeichner, K.  (2010) ‘Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college and university based teacher education’, Journal of teacher education, 61 (1-2), 88-99

What went on at ICSEI?

This week I had the great privilege of attending the ICSEI conference, (International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement) in Glasgow. From their website;

“ICSEI is an energetic global community bringing together policy makers, researchers and practitioners from over 80 countries in the ICSEI community to share cutting edge knowledge and powerful practice with a view to enabling education systems and schools to become learning organizations for the sake of better education for all.” 

Day 1

The opening keynote on Wednesday was given by First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon to launch the new National Improvement Framework (NIF). The First Minister spoke of the NIF being focussed on excellence and equity, to ‘close the attainment gap’. She went on to discuss how attainment and achievement will be recognised to support pupils as they transition through their educational career and into the world of work. The final point the First Minister made was around the implementation of standardised assessments which will provide data alongside teacher judgement to determine student progress.

“Faith in the expertise and judgement of teachers is at the heart of CfE and NIF”

Next, Prof. Graham Donaldson delivered a keynote entitled “The improvement trap (so what?): keeping the focus on improvement for children”. In this presentation, Donaldson discussed how living in a time of rapid change and globalisation, education becomes increasingly important and educators have to not be drawn into the ‘vortex of diminished ambition’, which is metrics driven and has a reductionist view of education. To escape the ‘the vortex’ teachers need to be empowered, trusted and research informed (laudable sentiments!). According to Donaldson, teachers should take the opportunity to become agents of change by working collaboratively and accepting accountability. Also through a rich broad curriculum, which has inspiring values and purpose, including rich assessments teachers can escape ‘vortex of diminished ambition’.

The final keynote was delivered by Dr Rowena Arshad who discussed how pupil’s attainment and achievement are linked to feelings of security and confidence, which allows all students to commit their energies to learning. In order to be secure, students have to feel included and this can only be discussed openly when we have the difficult discussions about how students are excluded. In this it is most important to listen to the ‘voices of the young people’ to allow them to speak up about ‘casual discrimination’ that ‘forces’ students to conform and leads to assimilationist behaviours.

‘Harmony is no indicator of justice’

Tony Finn, chaired and delivered the first paper in the symposium about ‘enhanced teacher professionalism’. Finn examined how standards of professionalism can help support capacity building of teachers and help teachers become more research informed.

The next paper was delivered by Ken Muir, CEO GTCS who discussed how teacher agency through professional standards, professional update, MyGTCS and practitioner enquiry supports teachers to lead the change in Scottish education by being research informed and interogating their own practice.

The final paper of the symposium was delivered by Tomas O’Ruairc, who described how at the heart of teacher professionalism in Ireland is time and space for teachers to share their learning through reflective practice. O’Ruairc outlined Ireland’s journey to aspriational excellence, based on integration, innovation and improvement.

Day 2

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Life-long Learning, or ‘Minister for Weans’ as  she put it, delivered the opening keynote. In her keynote address, the Cabinet Secretary spoke about the twin aims for Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) being excellence and equity and how these are being addressed through the key drivers of ‘raising attainment for all’ and ‘closing the gap’ initiatives. The Cabinet Secretary went on to contend that the National Improvement Framework (NIF) will generate data to provide transparency of progress at every level and inform policy making at local and national level. She also highlighted recommendations from the recent OECD report with teacher judgement being a key element in assessing student progress. The final announcement by the Cabinet Secretary was the establishment of a new group to embed the new SQA qualifications. The group will be charged with providing recommendations by March to support further implementation of the Senior Phase. In response to the Cabinet Secretary’s address Andy Hargreaves said Scotland had to ‘continue to be bold and specific’ in improvement.

The second keynote address was given by Prof. Allan Walker. Walker shared his experience of the Chinese education system and the paradoxes and mysteries of what makes it work. He discussed how high performing schools are commissioned to help poorer performing schools in a highly stratified system. He went on to talk about how leaders spend lots of time observing and discussing learning and teaching, and see themselves as connectors – cultural, structural and relational. The final point was around how leaders promote teacher-led school based research and nurture harmonious school environment through valuing relationships.

“Lead teachers are called backbone teachers”

In the GTCS symposium chaired by Ken Muir (@GTCSKen) that followed the keynote we discussed ‘The Teacher Learning Journey in Scotland’. Tom Hamilton (@GTCS_Tom) started the session discussing the complexity of being a teacher in Scotland and how standards can help to support professional learning journeys. Norrie McKay (@GTCS_Norrie) and I, continued the presentation giving a critical analysis of the support and challenges of the early career teachers’ journey. The session was finished by Ellen Docherty (@GTCSEllen) and Jacqueline Morley (@GTCSJac) discussing the impact of professional learning and enquiry.

The next symposium was based on using enquiry to support teacher learning. The first paper from University of Glasgow, discussed the current key issues in professional learning as;

·         Teacher agency

·         Influencers and leaders of learning

·         Critically engaging with practice

·         Leading professional learning

·         Building in-school professional learning communities

·         Use of technology in professional learning

·         Evaluation and impact of student attainment

The main thrust of the next paper was how Taiwan teachers have mobilised themselves and have developed ‘learning navigators’ who work together and support others to improve pedagogy.
My paper was next and I discussed practitioner enquiry as the ‘itch’ in your practice and how to undertake enquiry using @fkelly’s model and referencing the GTCS resources of Education Source – EBSCO, which offers access to 17,000 articles and journals, our e-book collection. I also discussed how we support practitioners to share enquiry through the Education Hub.

The final paper was delivered by Men Muir (@GTCS_Ken) explaining how successful professional update needs teacher ownership, leaders in schools and local authority that foster a culture and value Professional Update and finally acceptance /recognition that professional learning is central to improvement

Day 3

This keynote was amazing. It was delivered by Marinieves Alba who discussed a cradle to college approach to education. Alba shared the work being done in poor neighbourhoods in New York which provide wrap around care for families so that the students can focus on learning, this is awe inspiring. The schools are the hub of the community which builds educational capital through love and support. The school system supports families by catering for the basic needs, so that the students are ready to learn and develop self-efficacy and self-sufficiency.

“Strong instructional leaders, accountability and the view of the whole child and their families”

The next symposium I attended was “Policy translation and mistranslation“. It opened with Paul Campbell (@PCampbell91) discussing his Master’s thesis around ‘Teacher Agency in Education Policy Development’ and asking questions such as “How does policy development work in Scotland?” Does ' we ask' 'you say' ' we do' promote teacher agency? The main findings were that teachers tend to have policy done to them rather than being involved in policy creation, but this is balance by some who would say ‘it’s not my job to make policy’.

This was followed by a very interesting paper from the University of Stirling about ‘Translation of policy, from CPD to Professional Learning’. The most interesting slide in the presentation was charting the change in language from CPD to Professional Learning as below,

‘McCrone Report’ (2000)

            CPD 25            : professional learning 0

Teaching Scotland’s future (Donaldson 2010)

            CPD 199          : professional learning 25

National Partnership Group, response to Donaldson (2011)

            CPD 75            : professional learning 125

GTCS standard Career-long Professional Learning (2012)

CPD 0             : professional learning 43

The change in the language has been accompanied by a change in perception of the purpose of CPD/PL. CPD was considered by teachers to be ‘going out of school’ whereas PL is ‘built into school community’ and I like the last quote given by the University of Stirling which was;

“CPD was done to you, PL you do yourself”

The final paper of the symposium was delivered by Prof. Stephen McKinney who discussed sectarianism and Scotland, and the contention that denominational schools can be considered sectarian in and of themselves and that suitable resources should be made available to schools to be able to discuss sectarianism.

Day 4 – Practitioner’s day

Pasi Sahlberg opened his keynote with a tribute to Lemmy for Motorhead (most unexpected!) before going on the discuss school improvement in a very informative and entertaining way. Setting the context of school improvement which Sahlberg called “complex”, he urged leaders to ”break away from the crowd” and stop and think! Using PISA data, Sahlberg showed that the top performing education system was Finland from 2000 on and he went on to examine what makes a good educational system? and why do some education systems not improve?

He argued that there needs to be a merging of the ideas so that parameter of what makes a good education system and why do some not improve are complementary.

Sahlberg went on to discuss the global phenomenon of policy migration and the impact of ‘GERM’ (global education reform movement). The key points being;

Competition- unhealthy practice prevents improvement

Human capital – cannot bring about improvement without social and professional capital

Fear of failure – there is a need for more experimentation

Digitalisation- technology as a tool to support learning but you need to have a good pedagogical reason to use it otherwise it’s just fluff

In the final symposium for ICSEI 2016, the first paper was delivered by Louise Stoll who discussed the idea of evidence based education but she said she preferred the term ‘evidence enriched’, which I like. Stoll discussed the work she is involved in, which promotes knowledge exchange through networks. The most interesting aspect for me around how to engage practitioners in research which she called “helping practitioner encounter research in manageable chunks and varied formats”, definitely something for GTCS to think about, but at the same time Stoll acknowledges that it is about developing relationships and it takes time!

The next paper from Jarl Inga Waerness discussed a project around supporting leaders in school improvement. Their findings were very interesting and resonate with the direction of travel in Scotland;

“the municipality was inquiring into our professional learning activities, instead of just evaluating our results”

“using the process led to better prepared teachers that discuss teaching quality instead of data quality”

The third paper from Linda Kaser and Judy Halbert discussed the Spiral of Inquiry: for equity and quality, as a model of teacher learning and knowledge exchange.

For this to be an effective professional learning experience there needs to be a clear focus and purpose to the inquiry. There also needs to be structures and rhythms within the enquiry and there needs to be a third space to allow practitioners to step beyond themselves and be creative.

“All learners should leave more curious that they arrived!”

This was the paper for me that shifted my axis, I have read a little about this but now am going to explore more around the Spiral of Inquiry and Third Spaces.

ICSEI Glasgow 2016 was great experience where the sharing of ideas and thoughts about improving education systems, schools and teachers can be used to support all young people to be the best they can be. Bring on Ottawa 2017!