One of the sectors most affected during the viral emergency of COVID-19 is education, which had a change towards virtuality. To contribute to the debate, especially in pandemic medical education, I wish to share the following manuscript.

Article Educación médica en tiempo de Pandemia: el caso de la Enferm...

Great question! (Unsurprisingly) I wholly agree that we need to seize the moment. We know the kinds of dispositions which will be useful in life and at school and that we need to move beyond the mantra of 21st century skills - Article Why we need to stop talking about twenty-first century skills

Technical Report The capable country Cultivating capabilities in Australian education

In the UK I am part of a group trying to learn the lessons from lockdown - https://bigeducation.org/lfl-content/this-crisis-shows-creativity-and-critical-thinking-is-more-vital-that-ever-before/

It is possible to do much of what we want to do now, but still assessment and accountability systems and the often rigid disciplinary demands of universities continue to frustrate us from, as David Perkins puts it 'playing the whole game of learning' in schools.

How wonderful that you are part of a group looking for opportunities. Mobilising other educators, students and any others who believe in the need to reimagine education is essential like Greta's movement from the bottom -up. Governments will continue to hold fast to the factory model that can be standardised and measured. Creative and critical people will never be fostered on the factory floor. Yet together, globally I feel we can become a force that shakes and rattles and breaks down a tired outmoded and broken system. And when we focus on dispositions ( I added adventurous and

a tinkerer) we can bring education more in line with our day to day lives!

Thanks Bill!

Working in Early Years was a challenge but a few amazing aspects emerged:

Creativity spurred and flew as students were not affected by each other's work as they all worked from home without being influenced by the work of others. This resulted in completely different and unique pieces. A strong bond was created between family and school where parents saw and participated in the learning journey. Asynchronous work allowed students and families to work at their own pace releasing the pressure of performance furthermore teachers and school become more open minded about performance and standardized tests.

Working/learning from home allowed both sides to see inside the daily routines and the need for a revised educational system appeared.

Lovely to hear from you Holly. You raise many opportunities of value. I have found that parents and care givers can create obstacles for productive change. They are often delighted for their Early- Years children to be exposed to creative imaginings that you provide. It's when their children get older when the parents can become traditionalists and the children are directed to unlearn wondering and playfulness. Perhaps if teacher education and parental education and childrens' education were less sector and age and discipline specific as well as being cut up into time fragments and more about what we need as humans we would all benefit and rise to and better the challenges of today and the uncertainties of tomorrow.

I was just reading an article from 2008 from an architect Andrew Bunting. His article titled Rethinking the place of school is in Teacher Learning Network. Bunting discusses opportunities for schools to be places where people of all ages want to be. Schools that are open 24 hours a day with activities and rich information. He was discussing school as part of the community not separate from it. Besides churches, Bunting argues that schools are the leased used places. What if secondary schools use existing community infrastructure like town halls and libraries. and schools. I liked these ideas bringing learning out to the community. What thoughts do you have about place?

My apologies. I meant to write least rather than leased in the reply above.

Gloria, the issues you raise are quite pertinent to discuss and debate not only within the education sphere but in all major spheres of human activity, including economics, business, culture and so on. The advent of the coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated, among other things, that the 'old' ways of doing things have been challenged and that there is a need to find new ways of dealing with pandemics of this nature if we are to continue to survive as individuals and as a collective. In the area of education, for example, inasmuch as traditional rote and face-to-face teaching and learning has been one of the most dominant methods of channelling knowledge, the advent of the technology and the inclusion of online methods to facilitate learning has challenged the adherence to traditional methods of teaching and learning. It would be important to identify a new set of principles and a purpose-centred approach that would underpin the sudden shift that COVID-19 has presented to the educational and other related spheres of human endeavours. Interesting....

Hi John,

I so agree. It seems as Bill Lucas suggests, we need another Greta Thunberg to rally the forces of substantive change. What that we currently do is worth keeping and why? And then what can we let go? The possibilities are endless.

I am beginning my 34th year teaching STEM-related content to primarily middle school aged students as well as working on the final stages of a PhD in STEM education that I began 3 years ago. I have always tried to push the pedagogical and educational envelope (my husband calls me an educational rebel), but the push is often met with resistance from administration and parents, especially when what I've been doing is highly effective with students, but other teachers are not as comfortable with the new approaches or ideas. Some of what I've done would be so effective in today's educational climate with COVID. K-12 education has needed a reset for awhile. We are not living in a predominantly manufacturing society anymore that requires students to have standardized processes and skills when they graduate from high school or college. Today's workforce needs to be able to think critically and creatively, but standardized tests don't really meet that need. Other educators who would like to push the envelope as well are met with the same resistance. Unfortunately, it is often the teachers who have to move backwards in order to keep their livelihood, making compromises to what they see as effective instructional and educational strategies. It is very frustrating. Part of the reason I decided to pursue my PhD is to provide a platform that 34 years of teaching experience doesn't seem to offer. It's hard to not want to change the world, but if I can be part of the change, I hope I can. This pandemic offers opportunities for change. Unfortunately, for the immediate future, advances that may have been made for engaging educational experiences may take steps backwards as schools reopen. The American Academy of Pediatrics keep talking about the social aspects for children being in school, but while we need to socially distance, mask up, and possibly/probably partition physical classrooms to keep children and teachers healthy and safe, the social interaction as well a the hands-on nature of classrooms is going to be significantly diminished...that's a reality. (I am a proponent of masks & social distancing to make advances against this virus...we've got to do this to care for each other.) Consistency and steadiness in instruction in a virtual format will do more to help children right now than a seesaw back and forth as the virus ebbs and flows. I understand virtual/distance learning creates difficulties for working parents, but I if we are going to start and stop in person to virtual on a regular basis, that is not good for children. Sorry for the length of this. I miss teaching my students in person, but I also want all my students (middle school age) to be able to be in school and me to be with them in a creative, engaging educational environment. I don't know if this is something that helps your conversation, but I think it is important to hear from someone who straddles the practitioner and researcher arenas.

Thank-you so much for your contribution Shari. While so many students long to be back at school it is sadly only the social aspect they miss not the school learning. The rebel in you can't do it alone. It takes an infectious epidemic to spread the idea that we can't return to an educational system that is broken. We must break with tradition and not turn back and let this opportunity for change slip by. Why are you not STEAM related? Where are the ARTS?

Bill Lucas asks who will be our Greta Thunberg who will drive this desperately needed change?

My specific area of certification is Middle School Science, but I have also taught math and technology with engineering integrated within a gifted education environment. My students have the choice to utilize artistic expression in work they do, but the school at which I teach focuses on STEM and my PhD program is specifically titled STEM Education. So while my area may be STEM, I personally have allowed my students have choice to create final products on projects, which may include visual arts, performance arts, or wherever their creativity takes them as they are creating final products/projects for content areas under the STEM umbrella.

Perhaps the greatest challenge I see with STEM or STEAM or whatever you want to call it in schools, is the lack of a holistic approach. Each content area of STEM discusses integration of the other areas, but it is still very focused on the specific content area. Technology gets quite a bit of press in terms of coding, but it is so important for all aspects of STEM to have a deep dive and be integrated with each other. Science discoveries often involve creation of setups or designs that require engineering and math principles using technology, not necessarily in terms of computers but in terms of tools.

Students need to learn so much more about technology than coding. If everyone is a coder, who is going to use engineering to create the devices the coding is being done on? Many robots are based on some type of biomimicry, so it is important to understand the science behind the organisms being "copied" as well as the physics principles that allow the robot to move as well as the math involved to determine forces and machinery needed to make the robot move without just hit or miss guessing. Once these principles are understood, then a coder can program the robot to move. This cycle understanding is what seems to be missing from STEM in the K-12 environment. Secondary education needs to find a way to integrate content more, much like is able to be achieved in the elementary environment.

STEM, STEAM, STREAM...whatever one calls it, it is a buzz word and it will continue to be that way until educators are allowed to teach and work with their students in a manner that best fits a student's needs rather than a standardized, scripted curriculum. After all, life isn't standardized, but rather integrated and not sorted out into specific content areas.

I agree that STEM, STEAM terminology doesn't matter at all it's the thinking behind it and the teaching approaches that matter. In fact mandating these processes may well make educators dig their heels in even more or even worse, follow the mandated program to the letter sans integration. Thanks for clarifying your approach to the Arts. Is your arts approach integral to the process as well as to the product and how is it valued?

I believe most students quickly learn what their teachers find important, what each of their teacher's value. That's why teachers' dispositions are so important. It's not the curriculum that drives the learning, ,it's the processes employed, the adventurous spirit, the engaged teacher who is also a life long learner, the wonderer...Sadly for me, those students (who often get high scores, high the marks) give each teacher exactly what he/she wants. How many push against often rigid requirements? If these followers become teachers some will teach their students how to 'play the system, how to get high marks. And on it goes...

I think using e-learning platforms might help learners to gain more knowledge that they need

It is these buzz words (or acronyms in this case) that sell books and are bought by governments but don't necessarily influence best practices in teaching and learning. We should be discussing pedagogy far more than programs/curriculum.

Allow me to propose a way forward. I believe our greatest learning occurs when we are not successful. This is when we are the most open to new ways, new directions. I also believe that changing our practices happens slowly. The Covid pandemic affords us some possibilities. Many teachers have very minimal opportunities to watch other teachers teach. If they observe it is often focused on furthering content rather than examining pedagogy. What if teachers watch the teaching- watch teachers like Shari ( who comments above) and watch how she finds teachable moments, how she probes ideas further, how she challenges views and how she extends learning. Watch ways she asks what strategies her students use to solve a problem posed in order to make a variety of strategies transparent to others. Watch how she values their processes as much as their products, watch how she demonstrates that she too is an eager learner. Watch how she has opportunities for them to solve problems in groups and makes assessment engaging and purposeful.Then, following these opportunities to observe, teachers meet in a ZOOM meeting or discuss via email to what they noticed, question why particular choices were made, discuss the pedagogy.

Might this start to change what students need to become- resilient, critical, life-long learners?

I realize I'm a bit late to this conversation but am excited to join in ... with some rather lengthy thoughts here.

Gloria Latham, at West Point we have been talking and thinking a lot about these questions: how can we use our recent experiences to "bounce forward"? Rather than returning our learning environment to "normal", how can we use what we have recently learned to change our learning environment to something better suited for the future? Your suggestion of learning by watching other teachers teach - and focusing on the pedagogy, rather than the content - is an important element of doing this. This is actually something our department has done with excellent benefits for decades; doing so now in the remote/hybrid learning environment has proven even more benefits!

While we each have our own experiences and ideas about what is best for the specific courses we teach, watching someone from a different discipline has opened up new ideas. The current environment has encouraged many of us to flip the classroom (not a new idea, I know!) and because this is happening across the academy, there are more cross-disciplinary conversations about making this work most effectively than we've ever had before - these discussions are facilitated by our Dean's staff. Many of us are finding that the opportunity for students to work on and discuss problems in class is providing them with an opportunity to fail in a safe environment in which they can efficiently correct their misunderstandings because the teacher and their classmates are there to help. Many have also integrated elements from problem-based-learning as the impetus for students to ask more questions as they wrestle with new challenges. This is proving to provide great opportunities for students to develop skills that are important to lifelong learning, curiosity and creativity, and connecting new to previous knowledge.

Our department has a "model of teaching and learning" that has been modified through the years as we continue to learn from the literature and experiences of our faculty. We summarized a recent update here: Conference Paper Teaching Model as a Living Document

Concerning Shari Hiltbrand's comments regarding the importance of integration - I couldn't agree more! If there is one thing that is outdated in higher education is the continued "stovepipes" of disciplines within the academy and courses within a program. The literature is pretty conclusive: learning is most effective when concepts are interleaved and applications (practice) is spaced. The better we can integrate disciplines and concepts between courses, the better equipped our students will be. If you want to talk about something for which there is institutional resistance to it's this. The places that have accomplished this the best are schools that started from scratch, such as Olin College. I'm not sure our experiences teaching in the COVID-19 environment will necessarily help us make this case more strongly, but if it can be part of the broader conversation about "bouncing forward" we stand a good chance of making last change.

What a thought provoking entry Jacob and I have to add delightfully surprising coming from your position.You and others there are clearly thinking about the ways in which productive change can be managed. I heard a seminar yesterday on relational pedadogy. You might want to read further. The proponents argue that we can learn the most by observing the site and each site had differing needs. There must not be a standardised curriculum dictated from above that applies to all. Teachers they argue must be freeer to address learning in the moment. Students need to

guide what teachers teach next. Students are also teachers and teachers are students. Parents during remote learning have commented on how much more they understand how their child learns and are able to assist them. Observation and listening can be key here. Thank you for your thoughts.

You might like to look at this site, Learning from Lockdown. The link will take you through to a piece I have written about the importance of creativity and critical thinking- https://bigeducation.org/lfl-content/this-crisis-shows-creativity-and-critical-thinking-is-more-vital-that-ever-before/