If you give any question to a student that has a clear, definitive answer, you are tempting them to cheat.
This is your opportunity to learn from the oldest continuous cultures on earth. It’s anonymous, so don’t be shy.
How might learner-ownership increase if I approach this from a learning-savvy standpoint (instead of trying to be tech-savvy)?
Am I depriving others the opportunity to learn through failure by inserting my voice too early in a project?
How am I prioritizing the learner and process over the product and connectivity in tech-based work?
When learners are connecting in a digital sense, to what degree does the work (e.g. dialogue and learning) reflect their ideas, questions, and interests?
The goal for interviews in a professional learning community ISN’T to spot candidates who already have “all the answers” to questions about technology use or differentiation or classroom management.
The goal for interviews in a professional learning community is to spot candidates who are reflective, who have a growth mindset about their own practice, and who realize that personal growth is a function of collective study with capable peers.
I have adapted some of the Design Kit steps below and have a HMW Framing template
- Describe the problem or issue
- List the stakeholders
- Re-frame the issue as a How Might We statement
- Describe the impact you are attempting to have.
- Why needs your help the most?
- What are some possible solutions to your problem?
- Describe the context and constraints you have to your future ideas.
- Re-write a different version of your original HMW statement.
Here is an image I made based on the How Might We format:
I remember when I ran Genius Hour, I used HMW, however I struggled with supporting students in developing these. I think that Barrett’s steps helps with that.