AI generated unit plans and assessment

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

Last week I reported the results of using AI as a foundation for planning lessons. In general, I thought the bot I used produced a workable framework and, if thoroughly reviewed, some useful content and examples for a first draft plan. That experience prompted me to want to explore the bot’s contribution to unit planning and classroom assessments of various types.  

I asked the bot to prepare an outline for a teaching unit about the French Revolution. Here’s the output:  

I. Introduction

A. Definition and overview of the French Revolution

B. Historical context of the Revolution

C. Significance of the Revolution for France and the world

 II. Causes of the Revolution

A. Economic crisis and poverty

B. Political corruption and abuse of power

C. Enlightenment ideas and the influence of philosophers

D. International events and wars

 III. Major events of the Revolution

A. The fall of the Bastille

B. The Reign of Terror

C. The rise of Napoleon Bonaparte

D. The abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of the First Republic

 IV. Impact of the Revolution

A. Political and social changes in France

B. The spread of revolutionary ideals to other countries

C. The influence on later political and social movements

D. Legacy of the Revolution in France and the world

 V. Conclusion

A. Summary of key points

B. Reflection on the significance of the French Revolution

C. Final thoughts and open discussion.

 VI. Assessment

A. Written tests or essays

B. Group projects or presentations

C. Class discussions or debates

D. Quizzes or exams.

Like the lesson plans, the unit outline is a useful starting point upon which a teacher might build a detailed unit plan. In developing my plan, I would want to place greater emphasis on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the contradiction between advocacy of those rights and slavery and religious intolerance. Nonetheless, the outline is a starting point. It, as is the case with everything produced by the bot or even one’s colleagues, needs to be carefully reviewed.  

My next experiment was to ask the bot to produce a ten-item multiple choice test on the French Revolution. I stipulated that each successive item should be more difficult than the preceding item. I asked the bot to mark the correct answer with an asterisk. Here’s the output:  

What was the main cause of the French Revolution?

a. The Enlightenment

b. The American Revolution

c. The Industrial Revolution

d. Economic crisis and poverty *

Who was the first ruler of France during the Revolution?

a. King Louis XVI *

b. Napoleon Bonaparte

c. Maximilien Robespierre

d. Charles De Gaulle

What was the fall of the Bastille symbolize for the French people?

a. The end of the Revolution

b. The end of the monarchy

c. The start of the Reign of Terror

d. The start of their freedom *

 

What was the Reign of Terror?

a. A period of intense violence during the Revolution *

b. A period of peace and prosperity

c. The name of Napoleon's army

d. A period of intellectual enlightenment

 

Who was Maximilien Robespierre?

a. A philosopher of the Enlightenment

b. A military leader during the Revolution

c. The leader of the Reign of Terror *

d. A supporter of the monarchy

 

What did the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen do?

a. Established the First Republic

b. Granted citizenship to all men *

c. Abolished the monarchy

d. Established a dictatorship

 

Who was Napoleon Bonaparte?

a. A philosopher of the Enlightenment

b. A military leader during the Revolution

c. The leader of the Reign of Terror

d. The first ruler of the First Republic *

 

What was the impact of the French Revolution on other countries?

a. It led to the spread of revolutionary ideals *

b. It had no impact on other countries

c. It led to the decline of revolutionary ideals

d. It led to increased political corruption

 

What was the long-term legacy of the French Revolution?

a. The decline of revolutionary ideals

b. The end of the monarchy

c. The establishment of the First Republic *

d. The rise of dictatorship

 

What was the significance of the French Revolution?

a. It changed the course of European history *

b. It had no significant impact

c. It led to the decline of revolutionary ideals

d. It led to increased political corruption.

Over my career I’ve read many multiple-choice items. I’d put the items produced by the bot somewhere near the 80th percentile among all the items I’ve read. Without a prompt, the bot avoided items that asked “NOT-type” items, ones in which the respondent is to pick out the one item that is NOT an instance of the phenomenon addressed by the question. The bot also avoided tipping off the answer by keeping all plausible answers the same length.  

I am not happy with all items. The item about Louis XVI is confusing at best (Louis XVI was the last king before the revolution). I wouldn’t use it as written by the bot. The item that asks what was the fall of the Bastille symbolize for the French people?  is worded awkwardly. It should read what did the fall of the Bastille symbolize for the French people?  I wouldn’t use the one asking, “who was Maximilien Robespierre?” because it places greater emphasis on his part in the reign of terror than it does on his advocacy of universal male suffrage. Nor is it evident to me that the questions become progressively difficult. Notwithstanding those shortcomings,, the output is a useful, time-saving starting point for the construction of a quiz.  

To my previous caution about scrutinizing the bot’s output for accuracy I would add nuance is not a feature of the bot’s output. Yet, when judged against the output produced by novice item-writers – and I would put most teachers in that category – the bot scored about 80% in my mental calculus.  

In a future blog, I will report on the bot’s production of marking rubrics, group project ideas, and discussion questions. In the meantime, you might want to evaluate the bot’s production of multiple-choice items on other topics and in other fields.

Artificial Intelligence can help initiate the lesson planning process

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

Lesson planning is the foundation of good instruction. The process establishes the objective(s) of each lesson, the sequence of activities to enable students to reach the objective, the materials that they and the teacher will need while carrying out the activities, and how the teacher will assess the students’ attainment of the objective. Lesson planning is time consuming, especially for novice teachers for whom the process is not well established.  

There is a suite of lesson planning resources, including experienced colleagues, members of subject or grade level specialist associations within teachers’ associations, commercially available lesson plans, and more. The development of chatbots like ChatGPT that I have written about in earlier blogs will proliferate and provide another source that teachers can call upon to initiate the lesson planning process.  

I used ChatGPT to generate lessons for a variety of subjects. The output provided a credible starting point for lesson development. The bot generates plans in a useful format. It provides a title for the lesson, specifies the objective, suggests an introduction, outlines instructional procedures and materials required, details the students’ guided practice, makes provision for independent practice and lesson closure, and identifies an assessment strategy.  

The lesson introductions are functional if a bit pedestrian. They often entail asking students what they know about the concept or topic. An attentive teacher would note what the students know and do not know about the topic or concept, paying special attention to the misconceptions and misunderstandings that the students reveal that must be corrected if the students are to achieve the lesson objective.  

The instructional suggestions will include examples if the bot is asked to provide them. This is especially useful because it is very hard for teachers to generate multiple examples during a lesson.  

I asked the bot to produce several plans. 

• a plan [level unspecified] detailing the theme, character development, and plot of the novel Charlotte's Web with examples.
• a plan for grade 9 general science on the difference between respiration and evaporation, including at least three examples of each.
• a plan [grade level not specified] comparing the American, French, and Russian revolutions with three examples of each similarity or difference.
• a grade 11 plan about F.R. Scott's poem “W.L.M.K” showing the allusions to King’s tenure as Prime Minister with specific examples.
• a plan for grade 10 on the similarities and the differences between a revolution and a coup d’état incorporating at least five specific examples of both.

Like the plans colleagues provide or the ones that are commercially available, the plans from the bot are imperfect.  It is a good idea to check the accuracy of the examples, and, for that matter, the other information contained in the lesson. “Garbage in, garbage out” may be too strong an indictment of my requests but, in fairness to the bot, the accuracy of the bot’s replies might have been better if I had been more precise about my requests.  

Notwithstanding its limitations and mine, the output produced by the bot provided a useful starting point for developing a lesson plan. Evaluate it yourself. You might want to submit a few variations on the same request to see what the bot produces.

Artificial intelligence will change education but the sky is not falling

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

School officials in New York City have banned or blocked ChatGPT, the chatbot I wrote about last week. They are worried about students using it to do their homework and write essays. A spokesperson for the New York school system, Jenna Lyle, said, “While the tool may be able to provide quick and easy answers to questions, it does not build critical-thinking and problem-solving skills, which are essential for academic and lifelong success.”

It has always been my view that teachers are primarily responsible for building critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. Teachers do that by instructing students in the application of standards of judgment, logic, and canons of evidence.  However, if one were to apply the standard to which Lyle refers, New York would be banning almost every educational support in use today: textbooks, worksheets, manipulatives, microscopes, encyclopaedias, the periodic table, etc. I do not want to block access to those conventional educational support materials. Nor do I want to block access to or use of ChatGPT.

Kids with resources have been getting help writing essays and doing homework since before I was born. Essay mills flourished long before the advent of the internet. If you were privileged, you could pay to have someone – sometimes underpaid teachers – write an essay for you. Or you could obtain an essay from a friend’s older sibling or an older relative.

Parents – at least those who have the luxury of time – frequently help their kids with homework. The affluent can afford tutors or “academic coaches” – often retired teachers or teachers who are moonlighting.

I am not a fan of homework. Its impact is small and the stress it causes kids and parents is not worth what few, small benefits it produces. For students who work to support themselves or their families, homework is more than a minor irritant. So, let’s stop giving homework.

I do not think the ban or block that the officials in New York have instituted will have an appreciable impact on the use of the chatbot, nor should it.  I think students should be using the chatbot to write essays and do research.  In fact, school officials should be encouraging its use for essay writing and for investigating issues. Yes, you read that right. I said that teachers should be encouraging students to use artificial intelligence to help them learn to verify the accuracy and test the logic of the bot.

Students should be required to use the chatbot to write the first draft of their essay. Then, and this is crucial, they should be required to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the essays by citing at least two credible, independent sources for each claim. They should also be required to name any of the logical gaps in the bot’s argument, explaining what the gap is and addressing the gap.

In last week’s blog, the chatbot wrote:

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize the way we teach and learn, particularly in elementary and secondary schools. In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards incorporating AI into education, with a range of applications that can support teachers and enhance the learning experience for students.

If this were the first draft of the essay prepared by the chatbot, I would expect students to supply evidence of the growing trend and the range of applications. I would want evidence that the use of AI would produce a radical change (revolutionize) teaching and learning because the changes mentioned in the essay seem to be enhancements of current practice. They do not seem to be significant departures from what teachers and students currently do.

I would also expect students to provide references for the claims made in the essay. For example, the chatbot claims, “these programs use data and machine learning algorithms to tailor learning experiences to the individual needs and abilities of each student.” I would expect some reference to adaptive testing and to “the use of virtual assistants or chatbots . . . to answer students' questions, provide feedback on assignments, and offer support and guidance as needed.”

Artificial Intelligence is not the threat perceived by the New York City education system. It does, however, hold promise for supporting teaching and learning in the manner described in the bot’s essay, if employed thoughtfully.  

Artificial Intelligence will change education

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize the way we teach and learn, particularly in elementary and secondary schools. In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards incorporating AI into education, with a range of applications that can support teachers and enhance the learning experience for students.  

One way AI can be used in education is through the development of personalized learning programs. These programs use data and machine learning algorithms to tailor learning experiences to the individual needs and abilities of each student. For example, an AI-powered system might track a student's progress and adjust the content and difficulty level of lessons accordingly. This can be particularly helpful for students who may be struggling with certain concepts, as the AI can provide additional support and resources to help them catch up.  

Another application of AI in education is through the use of virtual assistants or chatbots. These can be used to answer students' questions, provide feedback on assignments, and offer support and guidance as needed. This can help to free up teachers' time and allow them to focus on more high-level tasks, such as planning lessons and providing one-on-one support to students who need it.  

AI can also be used to analyze data and provide insights that can help teachers better understand how their students are learning. For example, an AI system might analyze students' test scores and performance data to identify trends and patterns that can inform teaching strategies. This can help teachers to identify areas where students may be struggling and provide targeted support to help them succeed.  

In addition to these applications, AI can also be used to support teachers in other ways. For example, AI-powered tools can help to automate grading and provide feedback on assignments, freeing up teachers' time and allowing them to focus on more high-level tasks. AI can also be used to create interactive and engaging learning materials, such as simulations and games, which can help to make learning more enjoyable and effective for students.  

While there are many potential benefits to using AI in education, it's important to note that these technologies are still in their early stages and there are limitations to what they can do. For example, AI systems may not be able to fully replicate the nuance and creativity of human teachers, and they may not be able to adapt to the unique needs and learning styles of every student.  

Overall, the use of AI in education has the potential to revolutionize the way we teach and learn. By personalizing learning experiences, providing support and guidance, and analyzing data to inform teaching strategies, AI can help to enhance the learning experience for students and support teachers in their work. However, it's important to carefully consider the limitations and potential challenges of these technologies, and to ensure that they are used in a way that complements and enhances, rather than replaces, the role of human teachers.  

The preceding 500 words were written by ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) by the San Francisco-based artificial intelligence company OpenAI. Like many, I am curious about how technologies can be harnessed to assist teachers and facilitate learning. I signed up for an account to test ChatGPT. The italicized article was ChatGPT’s response to my request that it “write a 500-word blog about the use of AI to support teaching in elementary and secondary schools.”  

The essay ChatGPT produced is well-crafted and sensible, meriting about a C+ or B-. It advises the reader to carefully consider the limitations and challenges of such technologies. I tested that assertion and, it proved to be good advice. It incorrectly identified me as having attended the University of Toronto and the University of California at Berkeley. It mis-stated when I began my career at UBC and the dates of my tenure as Associate Dean.  

I was also encouraged by the injunction to see such technologies as complementary to the contribution of teachers. But I also wondered how ChatGPT might respond if I replaced the word support with the word replace in my request, “write a 500-word blog about the use of AI to replace teaching in elementary and secondary schools.” Here’s the response from ChatGPT.  

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in education has been a topic of much debate in recent years, with some arguing that it has the potential to revolutionize the way we teach and learn, while others express concerns about the potential risks and limitations of these technologies. One area of particular concern is the potential for AI to replace human teachers in elementary and secondary schools.  

There are certainly some benefits to using AI in education, such as the ability to personalize learning experiences and provide support and guidance to students. However, there are also significant limitations to what AI can do. For example, AI systems may not be able to fully replicate the nuance and creativity of human teachers, and they may not be able to adapt to the unique needs and learning styles of every student.  

Furthermore, the use of AI to replace teachers could have negative consequences for both students and teachers. For students, the loss of human interaction and guidance could have a negative impact on their learning and overall development. Research has shown that personal connections and relationships with teachers can be a crucial factor in students' academic and social-emotional development, and the absence of these relationships could have lasting effects.  

For teachers, the replacement of human teachers with AI could lead to job loss and a decline in the profession as a whole. Teaching is a complex and nuanced job that requires a range of skills and abilities, including the ability to connect with and engage students, as well as adapt to different learning styles and needs. It's difficult to imagine that an AI system could fully replicate these skills and abilities, and the loss of these valuable professionals could have significant negative consequences for the education system as a whole.  

In addition to the potential negative impacts on students and teachers, the use of AI to replace human teachers could also have wider social and economic implications. Teaching is a profession that is vital to the fabric of our society, and the loss of these jobs could have significant economic and social consequences.  

Overall, while there are certainly some potential benefits to using AI in education, it's important to carefully consider the limitations and potential risks of these technologies. Rather than replacing human teachers, it may be more effective to use AI to support and enhance the work of teachers, rather than replacing them entirely. By carefully considering the potential risks and limitations of AI in education, we can ensure that these technologies are used in a way that benefits both students and teachers.  

I wonder whether I should be reassured by this even-handed appraisal of the contribution of AI knowing that ChatGPT remembers all prior input from each user. Perhaps it was telling me exactly what it thought I wanted to hear. You might want to see for yourself how ChatGPT responds to the requests that I posed and to other questions about the impact of technology on teaching and learning. If you do, try it at https://chat.openai.com/chat and send me an email about what you learned.

- - - - - - - - -   

Next week I will respond to the blocks and bans that some have place on the use of ChatGPT in education.

Success resources for children and youth

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

It won’t surprise anyone that, having spent my career in academia, I love books. Even my friends who share my love of books find it surprising that I read three of the four volumes of the Robert Caro biography of Lyndon Johnson on my smartphone.

My introduction to libraries began before I went to elementary school. My mother and my sister would take me to a very large public library almost every Saturday when family chores had been completed. There was an area in the children’s section that was enclosed with an oak railing. The librarian would gather interested children there at different times of the day and read to them. One of the things I liked best about the public library was that I had my own card and could borrow as many as six books at a time.

The library in my elementary school was three storage rooms situated at the ends of three floors of our school, rather than one large repository for books like the public library. Groups of students from each class had a regularly scheduled library time each week. Each week our appointed group would go the library to peruse the books that were lined up along the side and rear walls and select one or more to read.  At the end of library period, students would take their books to two kids, called library monitors, who sat at a table and checked them out by stamping the due date on a slip of lined paper glued inside the back cover of each book. Being a library monitor was a privilege! Library monitors were rewarded with extra time to explore the books that lined the shelves.

The Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL) is a huge institution serving a diverse population of more than 4 million in a region with more than 13 million people. Its size affords it economies of scale that are not likely evident in small public libraries. LAPL offers an impressive suite of services under the banner of student success: free, one-to-one online tutoring for K-12 and adults; workshops to help student prepare for post-secondary applications; and a wide variety of e-media resources. Every student in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) receives a student success card granting them access, borrowing privileges, access to tutors, and “no fines – ever.” 

Most families do not have the resources or the ability to provide tutoring and homework assistance for their children. Yes, there are some very useful e-resources available on the Internet. But even the best of the resources available on the Internet are not aligned with the curriculum as organized in the region. The LAPL’s focus on students in the LAUSD attempts to ensure such alignment.

Something organized along similar lines at the provincial level would be a welcome addition to what school boards try to provide, achieving economies of scale impossible for libraries serving small or medium size populations.

Given the social and technological changes of the past century, it is doubtful that children and youth will have the same affinity for books that I did. They are afforded rich opportunities that I could not have imagined as a child. LAPL’s student success initiative with its curated collection of resources is helping to forge a connection with children and youth in a media saturated, digital environment in which today’s student live.   

 Best wishes for the holiday season and new year. This blog will resume January 11, 2023.

Maximizing the impact of diversity training

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

Diversity training is receiving attention as a means of helping people and organizations recognize and respond to implicit and explicit biases, prejudice, and discrimination. It is a positive sign that we are willing to acknowledge and try to overcome our biases and take concrete action to address prejudice and discrimination. Diversity training – called by a variety of names including anti-racism training, multicultural training, etc. – can contribute to improvement in inter-group and inter-personal relations but is no panacea.  

Diversity training is extremely varied. There are crucial differences in approach, methodology, intended audiences, and the outcomes sought. The contexts in which training occurs are varied. The variations have an impact on one another and upon the outcomes achieved, suggesting that there are many factors to consider before implementation.  

Among the differences in approach are two that illustrate the complexity. One approach includes training that is identity-blind, the other is identity-conscious. The former includes training of at least three types: assimilative, colour-blind, and meritocratic.  The identity-conscious approach includes approaches rooted in multiculturalism, anti-racism, anti-oppression, variations that put identity at the centre of the training. The impact on inter-group relations of each of these approaches differs depending upon the intended outcome:  reduced prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping, and increased support for diversity policies. In general, the identity-conscious approach is related to high quality intergroup relations. The effects of identity-blind approaches differ in their impact on the same outcomes.[1]  

The global purpose of diversity training is to improve relations with and treatment of a specific ‘outgroup.’ The membership of the outgroups that are the focus for improved relations can differ dramatically along such dimensions as gender, language, skin colour, religion, age, disability, etc. Such dimensions can intersect to produce differences in privilege and discrimination. Factors such as education, social status, economic position, etc. compound the complexity and make identifying the relevant outgroup attributes essential for the design of the training.  

Training design must carefully consider the complex relationship among many elements: context, participants, activities, anticipated outcomes, etc. Context incorporates several different dimensions: setting (organizational, educational); whether the training is integrated into a larger initiative or is a stand-alone approach, and whether attendance is voluntary or mandatory. Participant categories distinguish among children, adolescents, college students, adults, and among the latter different occupational groups.  

There are many considerations affecting the design of training. Is the training identity-conscious or blind? If the former, does it focus specifically on one group, a collective (medical personnel, criminal justice, teachers, etc.) or does it include everyone in a particular institutional context.  

The nature of the training can differ significantly. Some training focuses on encouraging participants to consider the perspectives of members of the outgroup. This often entails imagining how members of the outgroup think or feel or learning how that outgroup has been marginalized and the consequences of the marginalization. Another type of training focuses on performing tasks that are thought to reduce inter-group tension or discomfort. Promoting equal status contact between participants and members of the outgroup by working together on a project or task regarded as important. A third type of training focuses explicitly on exposing participants to examples of individuals that contradict the participants’ stereotypes of the outgroup.  

Another common training involves an appeal to the overarching values held by participants (fairness, respectful treatment, cooperation, etc.) and showing how discrimination or other forms of mistreatment are contrary to the professed shared values. Some training is designed to equip participants with the knowledge and technical skill needed to overcome obstacles such as discrimination in hiring or favoring one group of children at the expense of another. Training often combines some or all these techniques as well as others.[2] A distinction is sometimes made between training that seeks to change behaviour (new human resource practices, for example) or changes that seek to change attitudes (increased empathy or liking, for example).  

There are many other factors that must be considered in the design of diversity training. Frequency and duration of training are two very important considerations. The qualifications of the trainer(s) are another.  

Diversity training works. It produces an effect size of between d= .38 and d= .50 depending upon many of the factors mentioned above and others. To put an effect size of d= .50 in perspective, the probability that a participant in the training group would have less prejudice, fewer implicit biases, or superior skill in interacting with outgroup members, etc. would be about 63% when compared with a similar individual who had not participated in the training. If participants in the training group and their peers who did not participate in the training took a test, about 70% of the participants in the training group would have scores above the mean score of the non-participants.[3]  

If training is a well-planned part of a larger effort to make the organization or the setting a more hospitable environment to difference, there is a greater likelihood that the desired outcomes will be achieved. 

---

[1] Leslie, L. M., Bono, J. E., Kim, Y. (S.), & Beaver, G. R. (2020). On melting pots and salad bowls: A meta-analysis of the effects of identity-blind and identity-conscious diversity ideologies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(5), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000446

[2] Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L. & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A Meta-Analytical Integration of Over 40 Years of Research on Diversity Training Evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), pp. 1227-1274. doi:10.1037/bul0000067

[3] Magnusson, K. (2022). Interpreting Cohen's d effect size: An interactive visualization (Version 2.5.2) [Web App]. R Psychologist. https://rpsychologist.com/cohend/

The slow path to equity, diversity, and inclusion

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

It is no consolation to those who experience racism, exclusion, and inequities today that since the Second World War Canada has pursued an erratic path to increasing social justice. It is nonetheless important to recognize the changes that have occurred and understand the factors that have led to those changes.  

While there were, no doubt, pre-war antecedents, the effort to unite Canadians of different ethno-linguistic backgrounds for the purpose of pursuing WWII was significant. For without sufficient harmony, Canada’s contribution to the Allied victory would not have occurred. The War made clear that no group was exempt from the possibility of state generated genocide and gave rise to such legislation as Ontario’s Racial Discrimination Act (1944), Saskatchewan’s Bill of Rights Act (1947), and the Ontario Human Rights code (1962).  

Greater equality and inclusion were evident in the changed relationships between French and English Canada. Among the changes were simultaneous translation in Parliamentary proceedings (1959), the issuance of Government of Canada cheques in French (1962), the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1963-1969), and the Official Languages Act (1969).  

Immigration reform during the period 1967-1978 was tacit acknowledgement of Canada’s explicitly racist treatment of non-European origin immigrants first by exclusion and later by means of rules stacked against non-whites. In the late 1940s the franchise was extended to persons of Chinese, Japanese, and Indian ancestry. Canadians did not achieve universal franchise until 1960 when "treaty Indians" and Inuit were permitted to vote.  

In 1971, Canada formally proclaimed a state policy of "multiculturalism within a bilingual framework." In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was added to Canada's constitution. The addition significantly strengthened democratic citizenship and social cohesion by declaring that the Charter “shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians and enshrining minority language educational rights.    

My UBC colleague, Jason Ellis, traces the changes in educational equity in Canada that were concurrent with the ones I mentioned above. He calls attention to two post-war periods. He calls the period between 1950-1970 “getting everyone to the schoolhouse door.” During that period public education was expanded to include unserved or under-served groups. The  unserved included Indigenous children in the separate federal “Indian” day and residential schools and children with IQs lower than 50 who were legally excluded from schools. The under-served includes rural children, Black children in segregated schools in Ontario and Nova Scotia, children in institutions, and others.  

The second period (roughly 1970 to the present) Ellis describes as “making the schoolhouse welcoming to all.” During this period curricula were broadened to be respectful of and welcoming to difference. Notable changes include tolerating additional instructional languages (a form of multiculturalism), gender-sensitive curricula, the ending of Christian opening exercises and Christian religious instruction.  

Don’t get me wrong, the development of social justice in Canada has not been an inexorable, progressive march. Anything but. Examining the changes that have occurred may help us understand the factors that help to contribute to improved equity, inclusion, and diversity.  

Beginning during the Second World War policy makers recognized that apparent differences among groups would weaken the social fabric. In response, they promulgated legislation and regulation that required people to behave in conformity with the norms expressed. Furthermore, although it took painfully long, policy makers came to recognize that reconciliation among groups required formal acknowledgement of the harms inflected and admission for responsibility for those harms.  

Furthering equity, diversity, and inclusion in education requires that we examine whether the legal and regulatory framework affecting education is consistent with those values. For example, would these values be enhanced with provincial codes of conduct for trustees, staff, and students specifying their obligations to avoid harassment and discrimination on prohibited grounds? How might practices be brought into line with those values? For example, should there be a common investigatory protocol for complaints of discrimination and harassment, and a database of cases in which harassment and discrimination were proven?

District leadership for learning

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

 [permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

A reader of my blog about principal leadership and teacher practices asked me to address district leadership for learning. This is my reply to the request.

Although it is one of the best supported principles in education,[1] it is ironic that learning cooperatively with one’s peers is too rarely practiced or supported when it comes to teacher professional learning. Like students, teachers should work and learn together for their benefit and for the benefit of students.  

District leaders should establish the expectation and create the conditions that make such cooperation possible. District leaders can, and should, make explicit at the time of hiring that teachers are expected to work and learn together. The assignment of teaching responsibilities should consider the complementarities among the knowledge and skills that staff members possess. District leaders should require that District-supported professional learning be aligned with district and provincial goals.  

District leaders should also carefully consider the teaching responsibilities assigned to school-based administrators. Administrators who have onerous teaching responsibilities will spend what little remains of their time attending to the administrative issues that arise and not have time to devote to the primary role of supporting teachers to improve student learning and wellbeing. Administrators who are required to teach cannot lead learning. Assigning teaching responsibilities to vice-principals, a common practice in some jurisdictions, denies them the opportunity to learn to lead.    

In addition to articulating the expectation that principals should be leading the collaborative learning among staff members, district staff should expect them to spend time in classrooms observing the instructional process and providing feedback about what they have observed. Principals and vice-principals should be able to draw upon their knowledge and experience to support teachers in the same way that a coach supports an athlete to improve her performance. Skilled administrators engage in dialogue with individuals and groups of teachers, encouraging them to reflect upon and improve their practice.  

Expecting principals and vice principals to provide instructional leadership, organize and convene opportunities for teachers to collaborate to improve their performance and student outcomes, and align professional learning with district and provincial goals is a significant change. To ensure that principals and vice-principals can meet these expectations, the preparation, recruitment, and selection of school-based administrators must change to make these responsibilities the focus of the work of principals and vie-principals. Doing so would honor the original meaning of principal as principal teacher.   

It is essential that districts have clearly articulated expectations about student improvement against which student performance is regularly monitored.  Principals and vice-principals play an important part in leading the staff in monitoring performance and modifying teaching practices when progress does not meet expectations.  

Leadership for learning is not a ‘nice to have.’ It is an essential ingredient if one wants to have systemic and continuous improvement. While it is possible in the short run to take incremental steps to improve teaching practices, teaching practices will not improve – and student performances will not improve - without conscious, persistent, and system-wide effort and support. 

---

[1] Johnson, D.W.  and R.T. Johnson (2009) An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher 38:5, 365-379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057

Principal leadership and teacher practices

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

A reader of last week’s blog about conditions for improving student achievement asked, “What specifically can school principals do to encourage collaboration in aid of improved student achievement?” I said there is a suite of practices that principals should apply to encourage staff to take collective responsibility for the achievement and well-being of all students. “What are they?” he asked. This blog is informed by our exchange about leadership for learning.  

De-personalize teaching. It is difficult to assume collective responsibility for the welfare of all students if we talk about students as “your students” or “my students” or “that teacher’s students.” It may not sound revolutionary but changing our nomenclature can influence how we think about students. Possessing students (mine, yours, ours) has always struck me as problematic. Being proprietary about students implies that their behaviour and achievements reflect upon me alone rather than on the collective responsible for their education and socialization.  

Changing how we regard students can help de-personalize teaching. By de-personalize, I mean creating a concerned professional detachment about what and how we teach like the kind of clinical detachment that physicians have toward their work. The practices they employ are not unique to them as individuals; they possess a shared professional knowledge. I’ve not ever heard a physician say, “that’s my approach to X” but I have heard that often from teachers (“my program”). I am not suggesting that teachers do not care about their practice, but they should recognize and apply the body of knowledge shared among professionals with similar responsibilities.    

Sharing professional knowledge and experience would reduce the isolation among teachers that reinforces the impression that teachers are on their own and causes some to leave the profession. A collaborative professional culture would benefit students and help combat the professional alienation that some teachers experience.  

De-privatize teaching. Make it possible for teachers to see one another in action. For a brief period during their teacher education student-teachers observe their mentors. But, for most of the remainder of their careers, teachers do not see one another teach.  

I recently had a minor surgical procedure. The surgeon was assisted by a physician in family practice who made the surgical incision and the excision of the tissue.  I asked the surgeon about the arrangement. She explained that the family practice physician had been assisting her surgeries every Friday morning for more than a year. “She wants to get a better understanding of the surgeries and their impact so that she can better support the patients she cares for.”  

The early morning surgical schedule made it possible for the family practice physician to assist without too great an impact on her schedule. In elementary schools, however, scheduling makes it all but impossible for teachers to see one another in the classroom. Observations are possible at the secondary level because teachers have periods during the day or week when they can do their preparation while their colleagues teach. Despite the opportunity to see a colleague teach, few – almost none – do. Principals at the elementary level can facilitate observation by assuming responsibility for the observer’s class. The same could be done at the secondary level, and encouragement by the principal might go a long way to encouraging the practice.  

Encourage team teaching. Teachers at the same or adjacent grade levels or in the same subject areas can combine their classes and teach together.  

Provide instructional leadership. Instructional leadership can take many different forms. Principals should meet with individual teachers to discuss their goals and the challenges they face. Principals can arrange for and lead discussions about best, research- and evidence-informed practices. Principals can articulate expectations about the prioritization of foundational subject-matter knowledge and about the efficient use of time.  

Monitor student performance. At regular intervals throughout the school year, principals should lead teachers in the review of student results. In addition to an examination of the performance of the entire student population, staff should be scrutinizing the data about how sub-groups of students are performing. I have been in schools where – in areas not open to the public – the staff had posted memos and informal reports about the progress of students who found school particularly challenging. In those schools, successes were shared and celebrated by everyone along with responsibility for the students who found school or some part of it difficult.  

When I have described these practices to some principals, they have asked, “Where do these principals find the time?” I tell them that they have prioritized these actions and try assiduously not to allow the less important matters that arise from preventing them from addressing the important and enduring issues. Those who have made time for mentoring staff and monitoring student achievement have found their work more satisfying and are proud of creating a climate in which the staff feels they are working together for the benefit of the students they serve.

Minimum Conditions for Improving Student Achievement

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

From time to time, one hears about extraordinary individual improvement. The victim of an accident who through enormous effort overcomes near life-threatening damage to lead a life unimpeded by the injuries she sustained. The athlete who by dint of training and hard work becomes a medal-winner.   

They make for nice stories: Individuals overcoming significant obstacles to their success. But they are not complete stories. What one rarely hears about are the support from people who made such successes possible. The first responders who extricated the accident victim in time to save her life, the nursing and surgical staff who repaired the damage, the occupational therapist who carefully calibrated an exercise regimen and coached the patient.  

Behind each story of individual success there is a cadre of people removing obstacles, coaching, mentoring, encouraging, using their ingenuity and talents to improve performance so that success can be achieved. It takes a village to raise more than children.  

The key ingredient in improving performance and achieving success in most – if not all – human contexts is teamwork. Improvement and success are difficult to achieve on one’s own. Not only must individuals do their jobs well, but they must also be conscious of the contributions that others make to the overall effort. There must be a sense of shared, collective responsibility.  

Improving student school performance is more difficult than rehabilitating an accident victim or helping an athlete excel. It is more like improving a team of athletes. Schools are collections of students. Teachers can cope with a classroom of students. Some extraordinary teachers can close their classroom doors and improve the performance of all students in their care. Notice my explicit use of the word extraordinary.  

Yes, there are remarkable teachers who on their own help students make remarkable gains in achievement. Those gains probably won’t be sustained over time. Most empirical literature indicates that improvement attenuates over time in the absence of collective, sustained effort.  

There is much talk about school staff members taking collective responsibility for student achievement. One hears of teachers meeting to review data, plan improvement, share techniques, monitor results, and, when obstacles are encountered, adjust their practice.  However, as a participant in education for 50 years, it happens less frequently than one would infer from the literature and is rarely sustained beyond a couple of years – at best.  

The obstacles to successful student improvement are many. Individual teachers must be sufficiently comfortable to talk about their practice and receive suggestions from their peers. They must be willing to meet with their peers on a regular basis and consider evidence about student improvement beyond the information they collect by means of classroom assessments. They must be willing to interpret the data and dig in behind the data to try to understand the challenges students face. They must be willing to expose their practice to one another and be accountable for the results they have achieved.  

Oh, yes, there is another very important ingredient: leadership. For student improvement to occur at the school level there must be leadership. And, if whole systems are going to improve, there must be district leadership. Schools must have leaders who can bring together the disparate individual teachers and support staff to take collective responsibility, interpret data, create an improvement plan, share techniques, monitor results, and, when obstacles are encountered, adjust both individual and collective practice.   

I have described what I believe are the minimum conditions for improving student achievement. The literature and my experience tell me that many, perhaps most, are not present in schools or school districts. Until those conditions are met, one is unlikely to see much sustained improvement in student achievement.

Hard truths: choice and equity are incompatible

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 School boards try to navigate between two fundamentally incompatible values: choice and equity. The former has been well established in the field of education. “Programs of choice” and “schools of choice” are common in the education vocabulary. And, even where the terms are not used, the practices to which they refer are treasured.  

In some places, ‘choice in education’ is enshrined in legislation. The province of Alberta makes provision for charter schools, for example. British Columbia’s School Act makes provision to enrol students living outside the boundaries of their local school and for students who live outside of the boundaries of a school district.  

Equity in education is less well established, dating most visibly to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that over-turned the doctrine that separate facilities were permissible if they were equal. The Court’s decision said that separate educational facilities for white and African American students were inherently unequal.  

Maliciously inclined school boards sought ways to avoid integrating schools and programs. Even well-intentioned school boards have tried to accommodate what the Court recognized are essentially incompatible values. The student composition of programs and schools of choice tends to favour students from advantaged backgrounds. They immediately benefit from what is offered. The advantages they possess as off-spring of advantaged families are perpetuated when their participation in such programs or schools is recognized by selective post-secondary institutions.  

Canada has its own history of [in]equity. My colleague, Jason Ellis addresses equity in the history of education policy course he teaches at UBC. In his examination of equity in Canadian education his divides the postwar period into two. In the first, “getting everyone to the schoolhouse door,” (roughly 1950-1970) he addresses the extension of public education to unserved or under-served groups. Among the unserved Ellis includes Indigenous children in the separate federal “Indian” day and residential schools and children with IQs lower than 50 who were legally excluded from schools. Ellis includes rural children, Black children in segregated schools in Ontario and Nova Scotia, children in institutions, and others among the under-served.  

In the second period (roughly 1970 to the present) that he describes as “making the schoolhouse welcoming to all,” Ellis addresses broadening curricula to make it more respectful of, and welcoming, of difference. Notable among the changes are tolerating additional instructional languages (a form of multiculturalism), gender-sensitive curricula, the ending of Christian opening exercises and Christian religious instruction, etc.  

Contemporary post-secondary education remains economically layered. High school students from advantaged families are over-represented among the student bodies of selective institutions and high school students from less advantaged backgrounds are over-represented in institutions that are not selective. The effect is to reproduce the advantages of advantaged students.  

Many school boards try to moderate the differential impact that schools and programs of choice confer by using mechanisms such as random selection among applicants. Such mechanisms are merely hopeful gestures because advantaged families are over-represented in the pool of applicants from which names are drawn. Advantaged families can afford the transportation to and from the schools/programs and any additional fees that enrollment may require. Less advantaged families disproportionately rely on older siblings to ensure younger ones get to and from school safely.    

Inequities resulting from choice lead school boards to eliminate a program or school of choice or to change the selection criteria. When that happens, they are subjected to pressure from families with disproportionate political and economic capital. Talk about rocks and hard places.  

It would be easy to demonize the advantaged parents for wanting to maximize the benefits that participation in schools and programs of choice confer. I don’t think that gets anyone anywhere. What parent does not want what they perceive to be the ‘best’ for their children?  

Persuading parents to see beyond the horizon of their children’s interest for the common good would be challenging. It would likely require broader social recognition of the inherent conflict between choice and equity. I think it is worth striving for such recognition. The significant fraying of social cohesion is one consequence of favoring choice over equity. I worry that we are approaching the point where the social fabric will shred completely.  

I am encouraged when school boards recognize that choice and equity are incompatible values and make efforts to lessen the impact of choice and increase equity. But social equity will require changes beyond those under the control of school boards.  

In the meantime, I think there is something that school systems might implement that will mitigate the effects of choice and increase equity. But it will be challenging. I suggest that schooling be divided into two parts through the end of grade 10. All students should be immersed in language, mathematics, science, and social studies for seventy per cent of the school week. The remaining 30 per cent should be allocated for elective studies in areas such as art, music, athletics, and second-­language studies.  

I’d label this universal education program through grade 10 the foundation program. We should make every effort to ensure that students have successfully completed the foundation program successfully.  

By the time they are eligible for grade 11, students should possess the foundation for choosing a program of specialized study in areas such as language and literature; trades and technologies; social and behavioural science; mathematics and science; fine and performing arts; and business. There should be no prerequisites for enrolling in a program of specialized study except successful completion of the foundation studies program through grade ten. Specialized study programs might include more than two years of study, as is the case with Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel (CEGEP) in Quebec. Students who successfully complete a specialized study program would be awarded a certificate.  

If implemented well, my proposal would accomplish two important objectives. One is ensuring that all students meet the same standards to the completion of grade ten. The other, is that it provides a common social and educational experience that might contribute to greater social cohesion.  

My proposal does not completely address the incompatibility of choice and equity. But I think it would make a modest contribution to equity and social cohesion.

Another Step Toward Reconciliation

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

First Nations language and culture programs have been added to British Columbia’s External Credentials Program (ECP). Courses and programs beyond the formal BC curriculum may be approved for credit toward graduation. To earn credit the courses and programs must meet or exceed the depth, breadth, and rigor of the Ministry authorized grade ten, eleven, and twelve courses required for graduation. For example, students who are athletes, coaches, or officials may earn credit if they meet the many conditions set out in policy. The same is true for students pursuing their interest in music by completing Conservatory of Music programs.  

The ECP gives formal recognition to the valuable learning that occurs outside of school. Such recognition helps – I hope – to inspire a lifelong desire to learn. Students engaged in programs designed to develop students’ knowledge of traditional medicine and food preparation, land-based learning, artistic development, language proficiency, and cultural practices may seek credit for the knowledge they acquire by the ECP.  

Schools in British Columbia and elsewhere in North America are deeply steeped in the knowledge and traditions that settlers brought with them. Formal recognition of First Nations language and culture programs makes it clear that the dominant ways of knowing and being are not the only ways.  ECP recognition is a complement to the recently mandated Indigenous-focused graduation requirement, another small step toward reconciliation. Four of the 80 credits required to earn the British Columbia Certificate of Graduation must include an Indigenous-focused course from the list provincially approved courses or Board approved, locally developed courses.  

There has been some (seemingly minor) opposition to the Indigenous-focused graduation requirement. There is a petition to the BC Ministry of Education opposing the Indigenous studies graduation requirement which at the time that I am writing this blog has 14 signatures. The basis of its opposition is the specious argument that “the more you force students to learn a particular subject, the more they hate it” and that by making the course mandatory it will intensify “hatred towards the indigenous community.”  

Another signatory to the petition questions how the addition of Indigenous-focused course work will benefit students. He writes “we need to stop using the school system to push political agendas” but paradoxically claims “that all the wrong doings towards Indigenous peoples in Canada’s dark colonial (very recent) past should definitely be truthfully and honestly recognized.” Both the petitioner and the signatory misunderstand one of the key purposes of becoming educated: expanding our horizons beyond the narrow confines of our own knowledge and experience.  

Both the ECP and the Indigenously focused graduation requirement are respectful of ways of being and knowing that are unfamiliar to most of us. Exposure to First Nations ways of knowing and being may help those of us who are unfamiliar with them acquire a deeper appreciation of and respect for First Nations and in the process take a small step toward reconciliation.