Advocacy – Part 1

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

The 2022-2026 Good Governance Guide, produced by the not-for-profit Ontario Education Services Corporation, is a practical, if lengthy, guide to the work of governing and managing Ontario’s four publicly funded education systems: English Public, English Catholic, French Public and French Catholic.

The guide speaks to the many responsibilities of boards of education. Although focused on Ontario, there is much of value for publicly funded education systems across Canada. However, there is one topic that I wish the Guide had addressed more thoroughly: advocacy. Advocacy is something too often misunderstood and poorly executed by school boards – especially advocacy with senior levels of government.

Advocacy with provincial governments is typically handled poorly by most school boards. Many – I am tempted to say most – advocacy efforts that school boards make with provincial governments are unsuccessful or worse because the school boards fail to appreciate that they are in an asymmetrical relationship to provincial governments. Provincial governments have the power to create school boards, make legislation or regulation affecting school boards, and fund school boards.

Although it should be obvious, it is worth pointing out that it is imprudent and unlikely to be successful for school boards to threaten provincial governments. Some school boards believe that they can or are put in a position where they feel it is necessary for them to “take on the government” to satisfy some constituency. Boards that have tried to threaten provincial governments are simply ignored or sometimes dissolved.

School boards that have been dismissed because they threatened provincial governments believing that “standing up” to the government was making an important point for the citizens/students fail to consider two things. First, most citizens do not know what school boards do (or should do and often do not) or care about school boards. Very few citizens can name the trustees on the school boards that serve them. Second, “standing up to government” is a pyrrhic victory because, having been removed from office, the board no longer exercises its powers.

School board trustees are typically elected by the smallest voter turnouts of any elected officials.  In the 1950s and 1960s public education ranked among the highest priorities of the electorate because of the post-war baby boom. Most families had children in schools and the population could be mobilized to support increases in school funding. Social conditions are different today. Today, parents with school aged children are a relatively small percentage of the electorate; many of the most affluent and influential citizens enroll their children in private schools.

If threatening senior government doesn’t work, what does? Clear, logical, and well evidenced arguments have the greatest potential, but constructing the argument is only part of an effective advocacy campaign. Effective advocacy depends upon a series of coordinated actions designed to achieve the intended outcome. In next week’s blog, I explore the components of such campaigns.

Race and anti-racism, socialization, indoctrination, and education

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 I recently talked with racialized high school students about how schools should respond to racism, an issue that affects them deeply, personally, and frequently. To a person, each student said educate students about racism and the corrosive and hurtful consequences of racism for those immediately involved and for the community. When I inquired about punishment, they acknowledged that punishment might come into play if the individual repeatedly perpetrated acts motivated by racial animus, but they saw education as the primary response.  

The students’ appreciation for the power of education prompted me to wonder if the educations system was sufficiently sophisticated to distinguish among three easily confused processes - socialization, indoctrination, and education. All three processes can affect how people acquire knowledge, beliefs, and values, but only socialization and education have a legitimate place in schools.  

It is through the process of socialization that we learn the norms, values, and customs of our society. We acquire an understanding of society’s expectations by observing the behaviour of those around us and making inferences about how we should behave to function within that society. Socialization begins in childhood and continues throughout an individual's life. Children learn how to behave and follow social norms by observing and imitating the behavior of their parents, peers, and other members of their community. Socialization is generally a gradual process that occurs naturally.  

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating beliefs or ideologies without questioning or critically examining them, often with the intention of shaping the person’s attitudes, values, and behaviors according to a particular political or social agenda. Indoctrination occurs among adherents of religious organizations, political parties, and during military training.  Indoctrination is often intentional and may involve coercion or manipulation by someone in a position of authority who seeks to promote specific beliefs or values.  

Education is an intentional process of equipping people with the knowledge they need to function in specific contexts. It differs from indoctrination because when done appropriately, education encourages a critical examination of the knowledge one is being asked to acquire.  

The issues of race and racism provide an excellent example of how socialization, indoctrination, and education can impact individuals' beliefs and attitudes.  

Socialization, the process by which one learns the norms, values, and customs of their culture or society, can include learning about racial and ethnic identities, and the beliefs and attitudes associated with those identities. Children often learn about race through their interactions with their parents, peers, and other members of their community. Through this informal process, they may learn to assign individuals to groups based on skin colour and to attribute certain characteristics and values to those groups.  

Indoctrination is the conscious promotion of a specific set of beliefs or values. When racist ideologies are actively promoted and people are encouraged to accept these beliefs without questioning or critically examining them, they are being indoctrinated. A conscious effort to inculcate an unquestioning and uncritical anti-racist perspective is indoctrination even though the intention may be to promote a society in which bias, prejudice, and hatred have no place.  

Education encourages critical thinking and provides individuals with the tools to evaluate and analyze what they are being asked to acquire from multiple perspectives. That includes thinking critically about the norms to which they have been socialized.  

Effective education on race and racism provides individuals with an understanding of the history and cultural context of race relations, as well as the scientific evidence that supports the idea of human genetic diversity. Education should encourage individuals to critically evaluate what they are being asked to learn in order to develop an understanding of the complexities of the issue.  

Socialization, indoctrination, and education all affect an individuals' beliefs and attitudes related to race and racism. While socialization involves the natural process of learning about racial and ethnic identities, indoctrination involves promoting a specific set of beliefs without encouraging critical thinking. Education, on the other hand, provides individuals with the knowledge they need to understand race and racism and encourages them to think critically and analytically about race and racism.  

The racialized students with whom I discussed responses to racism placed great trust in schools to educate students about the perniciousness and impact of racism. They placed little or no value on coercion or punishment as a response to racism, recognizing that coercion and punishment might have a fleeting impact on behaviour, but would not equip students to understand the reasons why racism is corrosive and harmful.

Help students to ask chatbots good questions

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

The development of large language models like ChatGPT and their use in education and other fields are occurring so rapidly that it is difficult to keep track. Teachers play an important role in showing students how to use them well.

Teaching students to formulate prompts to obtain useful and accurate responses will serve the students well in using large language models or making inquiries of other sources. My advice to students would be to:

• use simple language that is phrased clearly to avoid ambiguities or irrelevances. 
• include relevant background information to contextualize the question.
• be specific, narrow the question or prompt.
• phrase the prompt as a direct question.
• break complex topics into smaller, manageable parts.
• determine the desired format or structure of the response.
• limit the length of the response.
• avoid biasing the response.
• use examples or scenarios to focus the response.

I’d want them to know that prompts or questions can be designed to gather specific types of information or insights:

Descriptive questions seek detailed information or descriptions of situations, events, or concepts. Example: "Describe the main features and functions of a smartphone?"

Classification questions seek to categorize, sort, or classify things based on their attributes, properties, or relationships. Example: "What are the main categories of programming languages, and what are their distinguishing characteristics?"

Inferential questions require drawing conclusions, making inferences, or deducing information based on available data or premises. Example: "Given increasing global temperature trends, what can we infer about the potential impacts of climate change on sea levels?"

Comparative questions focus on comparing different entities, situations, or ideas to highlight similarities and differences. Example: "What are the similarities and differences between solar and wind energy in terms of efficiency, cost, and environmental impact?"

Evaluative questions seek opinions, judgments, or assessments about a subject, often involving criteria or standards. Example: "In your opinion, what are the most desirable attributes of a student body president, and why?"  

Hypothetical questions explore potential scenarios, situations, or outcomes to encourage creative thinking and problem-solving. Example: "If you could develop a new technology to address a major global issue, what would it be, and how would it work?"

Causal questions seek to identify causes, effects, or relationships between different factors or events. Example: "What are the primary causes of deforestation, and how does it impact biodiversity?"

Problem-solving questions seek solutions, strategies, or advice for addressing specific issues or challenges. Example: "Are there steps that this school could take to reduce online bullying?"

Reflective questions encourage introspection, self-awareness, and personal growth by examining one's thoughts, feelings, or experiences. Example: "What have you learned from a past failure, and how has it influenced your approach to similar situations in the future?"

By teaching students how to form good prompts, understand the different purposes of questions, and craft well-formed prompts or queries, teachers can help students sharpen their inquiry skills and use sources such as large language models like ChatGPT productively and meaningfully.

All about the money

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

Springtime brings sunshine, flowers, and complaints about the allocation models used to disburse money to school boards. The common and inevitable complaint is that there is never enough money to do everything that a school board wants to do for its students. But once provincial and territorial governments have allocated the funds, there will be no additional funds forthcoming (at least until the next budget cycle).  

Knowing that, some will complain that the formulas used to calculate the amounts apportioned to various functions need adjusting. But, when the total allocation is static, a change to a formula to the benefit of some boards will in this zero-sum case disadvantage other boards. Inevitably someone will call for a review of the current funding model.  

The latitude for revision of the models used to allocate funds to school boards is limited to four basic methods. Per-pupil funding is perhaps the most common method of allocating funds to school boards. In this model, each school board receives a set amount of funding for each student enrolled in the district. Needs-based funding allocates funds based on the needs of their students. Foundation funding allocates a set amount to cover the basic costs of education, including such things as salaries for teachers and administrators, textbooks, and supplies. Categorical grants allocate funding for specific programs or initiatives such as language and cultural programming.  

The combination of funding methods provides a balance of stable base funding and focused support for specific needs and priorities, allowing for adjustments to reflect the differences in student populations among school districts. The methods determine the allocation of funding to districts, but, barring restrictions imposed by government, school boards can spend the funds as they choose. The principal factor limiting board discretion is the fact that in public education most of the costs are labour related, leaving comparatively little room for discretionary funding.   

The number of needs-based and categorical funding categories tends to increase over time, engendering increasingly complex formulas and reporting requirements. There comes a point at which it is prudent to review the funding allocation system to see if it can be simplified. Simplification can reduce administrative burden and increase understanding, but it won’t increase funding. So, when someone calls for a review of the funding allocation model currently in use, it is naïve to expect that it will result in increased funding.  

To justify a funding increase, it is necessary to demonstrate that existing resources are not sufficient to meet real costs or to demonstrate how improvements in student achievement and well-being can be achieved by providing additional funding. Demonstrating that costs have increased relative to revenues is relatively easy to do. Demonstrating that additional funding will materially improve student achievement and well-being is more challenging because school boards are not accustomed to evaluating program effectiveness. Program evaluations rarely emanate from the desire of a school board to know what is working and what is not.

Why teachers resist planned educational changes

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

In earlier blogs I talked about the risks that threaten planned educational changes and how they might be anticipated and mitigated. In this blog I want to talk about teachers and educational change.  

Teachers seem to oscillate between a barnacle-like attachment to some educational changes and an impenetrable, clam-like resistance. I think there are many reasons for this tendency to fluctuate.  

The first reason is that teaching is difficult work. There are many things to consider, including curricular expectations, the range of student abilities, the allocation of scarce instructional time, etc. The complexity of teaching makes most teachers risk averse. Once they have developed confidence in their ability to manage and have experienced success, they are reluctant to change. They are disinclined to adopt new pedagogy or curriculum if they think doing so would have an adverse impact on students or because they are worried that they may not be able to execute them well.  

There is a smaller group of teachers who are risk takers. This group appears to have developed sufficient mastery and acquired sufficient self-confidence that they are eager to adopt new practices. Eager to explore new practices, these teachers are easy to recruit to pilot-tests. They are what, today, are called influencers. If they think the new practice or resource is worthwhile, they will advocate on its behalf.  

The enthusiasm of teachers involved in or inspired by change is infectious. Once imbued with the spirit of change, they can inspire even mildly resistant teachers to adopt the practice. A teacher once described such an influencer to me in terms that have always stayed with me. “You know,” she said, “every teacher wants to touch her garment. If she likes something, it gives everyone else confidence.” The influencers are often the teachers who, if a pilot is successful, become the evangelists and coaches for the broader implementation.  

There is some danger in relying on influencers whose garments others want to touch. They don’t inspire confidence in everyone. There are resistant teachers who will say, “Maybe she can do it, but I’m not her.”  

Unsuccessful implementation of planned changes produces cynicism that undermines future change efforts. Teachers have a long memory for implementation failures that bolster their resistance to future changes. Teachers whose experience has made them cynical will wait out subsequent changes because their confidence in the system has been diminished by failures. Introducing system-wide changes takes a long time. Adopting new practices or curricula is hard. Some teachers will “opt out” of the change, confident that they will be retired before they will be “required” to change.  

Change fatigue is a factor contributing to resistance to change. New governments often come to office with plans to fix some educational problem. They are often branded, or as one teacher put it, “things with names.” When too many “things with names” are introduced in too short a period, often without sufficient support for their adoption, teachers become clam-like, shutting their doors to whatever the change may be. “This, too, will pass,” they say.  

Changes imposed from above are typically resisted. Even when perceived to have value for students, the adoption of the changes can take a very long time even when provision is made for building capacity and support – which they often are not. Making educational change is like repairing a car while you are driving. You cannot shut down the education system to ‘retool’ as you can with a factory.  

Changes that teachers perceive as negatively affecting their relationships with students will also be resisted. Relationships with student are almost synonymous with success in teaching. Few teachers are willing to make a change they perceive as threatening established relationships.  

Teacher resistance to change can be overcome with careful planning. Although it is tempting to rely on influencers to encourage change. I think it preferable to engage what a well-known BC teacher used to call “OCTs” – ordinary classroom teachers. Reluctant or resistant classroom teachers are more likely to entertain a change if it is one that OCT’s can implement.   

Politicians who avoid fostering change just for the sake of being seen to be doing something help to reduce the cynicism engendered by “things with names.”  

Well planned pilots, carried out by OCTs, with strong documentation of the factors contributing to success will go a long way to overcoming resistance to change. Involving teachers centrally in the change planning process will likely improve implementation and contribute to the adoption of successful changes.  

Another factor that will help overcome resistance to change is declaring that teachers have the “freedom to fail.” Teacher willingness to try something new is likely to increase if they know that there is a possibility that things won’t work as planned and that they will be supported for having tried something new. The “freedom to fail” coupled with monitoring and feedback will increase teacher receptivity to change and help them to make the adjustments that are necessary during any educational change.

Why most planned educational changes fail – part 2

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

In an earlier blog, I said that planned educational changes are not doomed to failure if risks are anticipated and mitigated. Among the risks I addressed in that blog were: failure to recognize and plan to overcome resistance to change, asking people to make changes that are a leap too far, managing changes when political regimes change, allowing seemingly urgent issues divert attention from the change agenda, lack of signal continuity, and poor implementation.  

I will try to address here the risks I did not address in the earlier blog: pilot-testing slight of hand, failing to calculate the challenges of implementing changes on a system-wide basis, lack of fidelity of implementation, and failure to monitor progress and evaluate.  

Let me explain what I mean when I say pilot-testing slight of hand. There is great value in small-scale implementation of changes for the purpose of seeing if they work. Showing the ‘proof of concept’ and learning from the small-scale pilot-tests can prevent the implementation of something that does not work as intended. I am not talking about such pilot-tests.  

When I say ‘slight of hand’ I mean conducting pilot-tests to be able to say that one is doing something when there is no real intention of implementing the changes even if they are successful. Though this occurs infrequently, there are instances in which pilot-testing is merely authorized to “look like we are doing something.”  

An example of pilot-testing sleight of hand occurs when politicians are unable or unwilling to stand up to a powerful advocacy group. “Let’s give them a pilot test” is the resort of a weak politician to a powerful advocacy group’s request. A variation on that cynical theme is “Let’s give them money for a pilot.” It occurs infrequently, but it does occur.  

Genuine pilot tests can be very useful, especially if attention is paid to what it will cost to implement the piloted change on a system-wide basis. You’d be surprised how often this is overlooked. It is obvious to me that the problem can be avoided if someone asks, “what will it cost to implement this change on a system-wide basis, if the pilot is successful?” If it is not fiscally manageable, there is no point in undertaking the pilot.  

In addition to costs, real pilot tests can provide very useful information about the challenges of implementing a planned change. Knowing the challenges is only useful if one plans how the challenges can be avoided when the pilot is brought to scale. Failure to recognize the challenges, and failure to mitigate them, typically leads to the failure of planned change because of implementation.  

Educational change is like baking. Change requires specific ingredients that are combined in a specific order. If you leave out an ingredient, the outcome will not be what you intended. Combine the ingredients in the wrong order and you might as well not put it in the oven. It won’t turn out as you expected. Most change is like that. You must use the correct ingredients and proper procedure. When that doesn’t happen, we refer to that as lack of implementation fidelity.  

If you aren’t a baker, think of it as planning a route to a destination. If you don’t take the right route, you won’t get where you want to go.  

Sticking with the travel metaphor, one of the failures of planned change is not monitoring your progress along the route planned. Recognizing when you are headed in the wrong direction is essential. Knowing the progress markers is important too. “We should be passing point X about now.” Using GPS for route planning helps to avoid drastic mistakes, but dependence on the GPS sometimes leads to dead-ends.  

A relative of failure to monitor progress is the failure to evaluate results. Even faithfully implemented planned changes that have been carefully pilot-tested must be carefully evaluated. And not just once!  

Avoiding the risks associated with educational changes can be achieved by anticipating them and making plans to manage them. It is unfortunate that doesn’t happen more often. If it did, planned educational changes might be more successful. 

I'm taking a Spring Break. I will resume this blog the week of March 27th with the third part in this series about the failure of planned educational changes. 

Why most planned educational changes fail – part 1

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

In previous blogs I have written how artificial intelligence, an external event, will (has already changed) education. That prompted me to reflect upon the failure of planned educational changes during my more than 50 years in education. There are many reasons why planned educational changes fail that I will address in this blog and the two that follow.  

In a blog titled “You can't change what you don't understand” I argued that a distressingly common and costly tendency in education is to jump to a solution without knowing exactly where the problem lies. But even in those rare instances where problems have been carefully analyzed and planned changes implemented, there is often little change.  

Systems try to maintain a steady state for their own survival. For true change to occur, that condition must be overcome (disrupted), a new state established and maintained. Most planned changes in education are not maintained for enough time to establish a new set of conditions.  

System-level planned changes seem doomed to fail because of risks that can be anticipated and mitigated but rarely are. One of the risks is the failure to recognized that education systems are among the most resistant to change. Education systems are the stabilizing force in a society subjected to increasingly powerful centrifugal forces. As agencies of cultural transmission education systems help to anchor societies to their core values, beliefs, traditions, norms, and practices.  

One of the many factors that can interfere with the maintenance of the planned changes is the election cycle. Provincial and school board elections that result in new education ministers and school boards (system governors) can disrupt planned changes. Skilled administrators can mitigate the potential damage that regime changes might bring by linking the planned changes to the agenda of the incoming governors, showing how the changes underway can help the governors meet their commitments.  

System governors and administrators allow seemingly urgent issues to distract from important, planned changes. A return to steady state is almost certain when system leaders fail to maintain ‘signal continuity’ - a clear, consistent, and constant message about what the changes are intended to accomplish. A return to steady state is almost inevitable when new policies, programs, and practices are introduced without regard to their connection to the changes underway.  

Another of the risks that portend failure if not mitigated is poor implementation. In human systems, new capacities must be developed and nurtured if the planned change is to occur. Planned changes in education typically require changes in practice, behavioural changes. For these to occur, people must learn the new practice, have time to apply it, and be coached. Most planned changes falter because insufficient provision has been made for learning the new behaviour and receiving feedback and support until the changes become internalized.  

In education there are several obstacles to learning new behaviours. Many planned educational changes ask teachers to make too great a change in their behaviour. Rather than conceive and plan for incremental modification in behaviour, many planned educational changes ask teachers to make a leap too far, engendering a fear of failure that keeps them rooted in whatever current practice they believe is satisfactory.  

Even when the behaviour changes are small, incremental adjustments, teachers rarely teach in the company of their peers who can provide support and advice. But successful learning depends upon clear and supportive feedback as all teachers know.  

The risks outlined above do not exhaust the risks to planned educational changes that typically lead to their failure. In a blog or blogs to come, I will address the risks of lack of fidelity of implementation, failure to monitor progress and evaluate, pilot-testing, and the costs of bringing changes to scale.  

Planned educational changes are not doomed to failure. The risks to change are formidable, but I believe they are manageable if anticipated and mitigated.

Eliminate homework, please!

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

I received an email from someone who reads my blog questioning my statement that I am not a fan of homework. Not a fan is a bit mild. I’m fed up with homework. Not my homework. (I was fed up with that long ago.) I am referring to my grandchildren’s homework. Most of the homework assignments they have received this year and in years past are tedious, reinforce bad habits, and make little or no contribution to their education.

Most of the homework assignments consist of “solving” repetitive homework problems, “answering” questions, and “doing” research.  There is evidence that homework has a very small impact on achievement of students as measured by unit exams. As Cooper and his colleagues put it in a systematic review of the literature: “. . .the positive causal effect of homework on achievement has been tested and found only on measures of an immediate outcome, the unit test. Therefore, it is not possible to make claims about homework’s causal effects on longer-term measures of achievement, such as class grades and standardized tests, or other achievement-related outcomes (p.53).” Nor is there enough evidence to say that the link between homework and achievement holds across subjects.

My granddaughter came home from school and asked, “Grampi, can you help me with my math homework?”  The fact that she needed help told me that she had not really learned what she was being asked to practice.

Homework that engages students in practice exercises designed to reinforce prior learning can only succeed if the students have mastered what they have been asked to practice to the point where they are unlikely to make mistakes. If they have not, they will make mistakes. If the homework assignment involves repetition as homework assignments often do, students who make mistakes will practice their mistakes. Practicing the mistakes will harden them and make it difficult for teachers to change them.

Prior to COVID 19, my other granddaughter was asked to produce a three to four-page persuasive essay appraising the impact of a major historical event. The assignment was well laid out. The guide explained what was meant by a persuasive essay. The guide provided a recommended structure of a persuasive essay, and explained how to handle referencing source materials. The criteria for evaluation were clearly specified and the allocation of marks to key elements explained.  

But my granddaughter was at a loss about several things. I asked whether the current or a previous teacher had explained and provided practice in writing a persuasive essay. “No,” she replied, “but there is a guide sheet.”

“What preparation have you had with the topic area?” I asked.

“We’ve worked in groups answering questions the teacher gave us about the topic.”

“How did that go?”

“Each kid researched one of the questions.”

“Did the group discuss the answers with the teacher?”

“Not really. We just looked up the answers to the questions.”

I do not blame the teachers. Teacher education programs devote little, if any, attention to homework. Many parents mistakenly equate homework with achievement. If their children do not have homework, these parents think that their kids aren’t learning.

There are many things that students can do after school that are more beneficial than homework. My hunch is that outdoor play that requires physical exercise has a better return on the investment of time in terms of long-term health than homework has on achievement. Many after school jobs require discipline, mental effort, and social skills that have both short and long term benefit. Eliminate homework, please!

AI produced scoring rubrics, group projects, and discussion questions

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

In previous blogs I explored the use of AI for planning lessons, outlining a unit, and creating a multiple-choice quiz. This blog reports the results of my exploration of using AI to create a scoring rubric, generating group projects, and producing discussion questions.  

I also asked the bot to create a marking rubric for essays addressing the question "was the French Revolution a success?"  Here’s what it produced.  

Marking Rubric for "Was the French Revolution a Success?" Essays  

I. Introduction

·         Clearly states the topic and thesis statement (0-2 marks)

·         Provides background information on the French Revolution (0-2 marks)

 II. Historical Context

·         Describes the political, economic, and social conditions leading up to the Revolution (0-2 marks)

·         Outlines the key events of the Revolution (0-2 marks)

 III. Analysis of Success

·         Defines what constitutes success in the context of the French Revolution (0-2 marks)

·         Supports thesis with well-researched and relevant historical evidence (0-5 marks)

·         Considers both positive and negative outcomes of the Revolution (0-5 marks)

·         Integrates outside sources to support arguments (0-3 marks)

 IV. Conclusion

·         Restates thesis and summarizes key arguments (0-2 marks)

·         Offers a clear, concise evaluation of the success of the French Revolution (0-2 marks)

·         Provides implications for the future or lessons learned from the Revolution (0-2 marks)

 V. Writing Quality

·         Properly cites sources using MLA or Chicago style (0-2 marks)

·         Demonstrates clarity, coherence, and organization in writing (0-2 marks)

·         Avoids errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling (0-2 marks)

 VI. Total (out of 25 marks)

I would employ the rubric as is. I particularly liked that the bot identified that it is important that students define success in context, support their argument with evidence, consider both positive and negative outcomes of the Revolution, and integrate outside sources to support their arguments (though the latter point might seem to double count the evidentiary requirement).  

Knowing that group work is common and popular technique among teachers, I asked the bot to provide a list of group projects for students studying the French Revolution. I was pleasantly surprised by the variety of suggestions:  

• Role-Play Simulation: Divide the class into groups and assign each group a specific role, such as a member of the Third Estate, a member of the Royal Court, or a revolutionary leader. Each group must then conduct a simulated meeting or debate to address a specific issue related to the French Revolution.  

• Newspaper Project: Have students create a newspaper from the perspective of the French Revolution. Each group must research and write articles about key events, figures, and issues during the Revolution, including opinions and editorials.  

• Museum Exhibition: Have students create a museum exhibit on the French Revolution. Each group must research and create displays and interactive exhibits such as maps, paintings, artifacts, and timelines, to illustrate the causes, events, and impacts of the Revolution.  

• Historical Fiction: Have students write a fictional story set during the French Revolution. Each group must research the time period, create characters, and write a story that captures the essence of the Revolution while incorporating accurate historical information.  

• Debating Society: Have students form a debating society to discuss and debate key issues related to the French Revolution. Each group must research and prepare arguments, both for and against, on topics such as the role of the monarchy, the impact of the Enlightenment, and the legacy of the Revolution.  

• Political Cartoon Project: Have students create political cartoons to comment on key events and issues during the French Revolution. Each group must research and create illustrations that convey a message or opinion about the Revolution.  

• Re-enactment: Have students re-enact a key event from the French Revolution, such as the fall of the Bastille, the Reign of Terror, or the rise of Napoleon. Each group must research and prepare a script, costumes, and props to bring the event to life.  

• Historical Documentary: Have students create a historical documentary on the French Revolution. Each group must research and create a film that covers the causes, events, and impacts of the Revolution, using primary sources, interviews, and visual aids.  

• Research Paper: Have students write a research paper on a specific aspect of the French Revolution. Each group must choose a topic, such as the role of women, the influence of the Enlightenment, or the impact of the Revolution on Europe, and research and write a well-supported paper that addresses their chosen topic.  

• Museum Scavenger Hunt: Have students create a scavenger hunt for a museum exhibit on the French Revolution. Each group must research and create questions, clues, and puzzles to guide visitors through the exhibit and help them learn about the causes, events, and impacts of the Revolution.

I’d consider most of the suggestions, but I would not include the suggestion about re-enacting the Reign of Terror for reasons that I assume are obvious.  

I find group projects relatively time consuming. I prefer encouraging group discussions as a means of assessing how well students have grasped the central concepts and ideas associated with a topic. So, I asked the bot to create a list of discussion topics that a group of students might have about the French Revolution. Here is the bot’s output:  

·         What were the main causes of the French Revolution?

·         How did Enlightenment ideas influence the Revolution?

·         What was the significance of the fall of the Bastille?

·         How did the Revolution impact the French monarchy and the role of the king?

·         What were the key events and turning points of the Revolution, such as the Reign of Terror and the rise of Napoleon?

·         What was the role of women in the Revolution, and how did they contribute to the cause of liberty and equality?

·         How did the Revolution affect the French economy, society, and culture?

·         How did the Revolution influence other European countries and the wider world?

·         What were the long-term effects and legacies of the Revolution, both positive and negative?

·         Was the French Revolution ultimately a success, and if so, what made it successful? If not, what factors contributed to its failure?

These are worthy topics that, if given time for preparation, would challenge students to invest mental effort in demonstrating their learning and build upon the contributions of their peers.

I suggest you evaluate the bot’s production of rubrics, group projects, and discussions on other topics and in other fields.

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.