You can find your way across this country using burger joints the way a navigator uses stars. ~Charles Kuralt
One of the many conversations held on the Taeiri Gorge Train Trip that meant I totally missed crossing the “magnificent stone and wrought iron viaducts and bridges” and neglected to suck breath into every orifice at “the sheer drops to the river below” was all about “Feedback”.
The mesmerising roseg stepped back from the piano for a moment and joined the two T’s, and artichoke in teasing out what feedback tasted like in the hospitality industry, what feedback felt like when you took the real world of hospitality into the muted landscapes of tertiary education and what feedback should be about.
I have never understood offering feedback to institutions. When I am asked for feedback I am torn by the desire to be faithful to the Arti_choke and say what I believe, and the smart approach – to adopt a “this is just a game and no one reads it anyway” type of feedback.
Although telling those “that ask what I think”, what I think they most want to hear is smart thinking I am hopelessly attracted to the need to cast all the stones.
Apparently there is another option. According to T, (or was it K? the rattle of steel wheel against steel track makes me uncertain), regardless of audience you should adjust your feedback so that it able to be understood and adopted. This was a critical new insight to Arti’ – apparently muted and muzzled parboiled even lightly steamed bipolar feedback can be more valuable to effecting institutional change than unloading raw thought. Many institutions spend their whole time “hunting” in response to feedback received. Seems that
- Feedback may be negative, which tends to reduce output (but in amplifiers, stabilises and linearises operation), positive, which tends to increase output, or bipolar which can either increase or decrease output. Systems which include feedback are prone to hunting, which is oscillation of output resulting from improperly tuned inputs of first positive then negative feedback Wikipedia
Is why the whole (e) fellow thing this year surprised me. The Moe is big on feedback, or claims to be. In closing the gap between what students have done, and what they could do the MoE suggests that “
- Specific constructive feedback about learning as it is occurring is one of the most powerful influences on student achievement. (New Zealand Ministry of Education. 2001, p2
Is classic "wot I say on the web site" and "wot I do in real life" stuff.
Our cluster teachers attempts to find their way across the landscapes of the (e) fellowship application rejection process suggests that the right hand of the MoE continues to misunderstand the left wrt wot I say and wot I do.
Feedback that helps you find your way - the Golden M’s Big Macs, BK’s cheesy bacon tender crisps and Wendy’s Classic Triple with cheese outlets signage, does not feature in the feedback offered by the MoE for unsuccessful candidates. Instead the MoE offers an identical generic patter to all those rejected on why their capability and experience was insufficient for a successful application. – something along the lines of
You may wish to reflect on these points if considering a further application:
1. Capability and experience of applicant particularly with regard to:
- - appreciation of use of ICT to enhance the learning environment and provide opportunities to implement a range of teaching and learning strategies
- - ability to successfully complete the project; leadership ability, project mgmt, involvement in successful and/or innovative projects
- - commitment to PD and higher level reflective practice
2. Scope and potential value of the project
- - outcomes focussed with key goals related to learning
- - innovative and creative
- - not repeating existing work
- - likely to be of significance and interest to others in the educational community
The generic nature of this MoE feedback was not helpful. In truth it was both hurtful and vexing for teachers to read suggestions that their capability and experience did not button the button in areas where their professional practice is exemplary and clearly exceeds expectations. Applicants for instance with, post graduate degrees in the use of ICT in teaching and learning completed in their own time, links established with credible University researchers, projects identified in the wider educational ICT community as innovative and necessary research etc .
It was unclear from this MoE generic “feedback” how individual applications could be strengthened.
In this respect the e fellowship application response fails the first criterion for effective feedback. To be counted as feedback the rejection emails should more thoughtfully target the individual applications, should indicate to the teachers that someone has carefully read their application, and respects the thought they have put into it, and should provide some clear burger joint signage about what to try next time .
My experience with our cluster teachers this year means that I will advise rejected (e) fellowship applicants in future that they’d be better off playing “Wake Up” by The Living End on repeat, than attempting to locate thoughtful personalized burger joint feedback in the e fellowship rejection feedback from the MoE
Recent Comments