Literacy is a Worldwide Concern - Even in the Top Schools

In my experience as an educator, modern students are exposed to more language than ever before, yet engage deeply with it less than any previous generation.

This thought captures a paradox many educators now recognize instinctively, even if we struggle to name it. In an age of constant connectivity, instant information, and endless text, literacy is not improving. In many contexts, it is quietly eroding.

And this erosion is not limited to under-resourced schools or communities with limited access to education. It is increasingly visible in well-funded private schools, international schools, and high-achieving academic environments.

According to UNESCO, literacy is defined as: The ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts.

This definition matters. Literacy, in this sense, is not about decoding words or passing language exams. It is about meaning-making, comprehension, interpretation, reasoning, and communication.

Under this definition, a student may read fluently, write grammatically correct sentences, use sophisticated vocabulary, and still be functionally illiterate.

Years ago, a mathematics teacher asked me a question I have never forgotten:
“Why should I be concerned about literacy? I teach math.”

It was a revealing question. Mathematics depends on literacy. Students must read word problems accurately, interpret instructions, distinguish relevant from irrelevant information, follow logical sequences, explain reasoning, and justify solutions. When students fail to do these things, the problem is rarely mathematical knowledge alone. It is often a literacy problem.

The same applies to science, humanities, technology, and the arts. Literacy is not the responsibility of language teachers alone. It is the foundation of all learning.

Several powerful forces are converging to weaken literacy across age groups and contexts.

1. The Internet Rewards Speed, Not Understanding
Students are conditioned to skim, search, and extract rather than read, reflect, and synthesize. The habit of sustained attention—essential for literacy—is disappearing.

2. Social Media Fragments Language
Short posts, captions, comments, and emojis dominate students’ daily language exposure. These formats prioritize reaction over reasoning and brevity over clarity.

3. Information Access Is Confused with Knowledge
Students can locate answers quickly but often cannot explain them, evaluate them, or apply them in unfamiliar contexts. The appearance of competence masks shallow understanding.

4. AI Short-Circuits the Literacy Process
When tools generate text instantly, students can bypass the struggle that builds comprehension and expressive clarity. Editing replaces thinking. Output replaces understanding.

5. Reading Stamina Has Declined
Many students find extended texts exhausting. They struggle to follow arguments across pages or even paragraphs.

6. Schools Assume Literacy Instead of Teaching It
In high-performing schools especially, literacy is often assumed to be “already in place.” As a result, it is rarely taught explicitly outside language classes.

This is not a local problem. Educators worldwide report the same patterns, across curricula, languages, and income levels. The issue is not access to schooling. It is the quality of engagement with language.

When students cannot interpret, analyze, evaluate, or articulate meaning clearly, learning becomes fragile. Knowledge does not transfer. Critical thinking weakens. Democratic participation, ethical reasoning, and informed decision-making all suffer.

The solution does not lie in banning technology or adding more tests. It lies in reclaiming literacy as a shared responsibility.

Every teacher can:

• Make reading visible
  Ask students to explain how they understood a problem, not just what the answer is.

• Slow the process down
  Build time for rereading, annotating, and discussing meaning. Speed should not be the goal.

• Insist on explanation and justification
  Whether in math, science, or art, students should regularly explain their thinking in complete, coherent language.

• Teach vocabulary in context
  Subject-specific language must be unpacked, revisited, and actively used. (See the example in the PEN Handbook).

• Design tasks that require interpretation, not retrieval
  Questions with no single obvious answer force students to engage deeply with text and ideas.

• Use AI transparently and critically
  If AI is used, students should analyze, critique, and improve outputs, not submit them unexamined.

Most importantly, teachers can name literacy explicitly. When students understand that reading, writing, and thinking are central to every subject, expectations change.

Literacy is no longer something we can assume students “pick up along the way.” In a world saturated with language but starved of depth, literacy must be taught deliberately, practiced consistently, and protected intentionally.

It is not an add-on.
It is not the job of one department.
It is the core of education itself.

識字能力是全球性的關注議題——即使在最好的學校也是如此

以我作為教育工作者的經驗來看，現代學生接觸到的語言比以往任何一個世代都多，然而，他們對語言進行深度理解與投入的程度，卻比任何前一代都來得低。

這句話點出了許多教育者如今本能地察覺、卻難以清楚表述的一種矛盾現象。在一個高度連結、資訊即時、文字無所不在的時代，學生的識字能力並未隨之提升；在許多情境中，它正悄然流失。

而這種流失並不僅限於資源不足的學校或教育機會有限的社群。它愈來愈明顯地出現在設備完善的私立學校、國際學校，以及學業表現優異的學習環境中。

根據聯合國教科文組織（UNESCO）的定義，識字能力是指：
能夠在不同情境中，運用印刷與書寫材料進行辨識、理解、詮釋、創作、溝通與計算的能力。

這一定義極為重要。在此意義下，識字並不只是解讀文字，或通過語言考試，而是關於意義的建構——理解、詮釋、推理與有效溝通。

依據這一定義，一名學生即使能流利閱讀、寫出語法正確的句子、並使用高階詞彙，仍可能在功能上屬於識字能力不足。

多年前，一位數學老師曾問我一個我至今難忘的問題：
「為什麼我需要關心識字能力？我教的是數學。」

這是一個極具啟發性的問題。數學本身高度依賴識字能力。學生必須能準確閱讀文字題目、理解指示、區分相關與不相關資訊、遵循邏輯步驟、說明推理過程，並為答案提供合理的論證。當學生無法做到這些時，問題往往不在於數學知識本身，而是在於識字能力。

同樣的情況也適用於科學、人文學科、科技與藝術。識字能力並非語言教師的專屬責任，而是所有學習的基礎。

目前，有多股強大的力量正同時削弱不同年齡層與不同教育情境中的識字能力。

一、網路獎勵速度，而非理解
學生被訓練去快速瀏覽、搜尋與擷取資訊，而非閱讀、反思與統整。對識字能力至關重要的持續專注力，正逐漸消失。

二、社群媒體使語言碎片化
貼文、標題、留言與表情符號主導了學生的日常語言接觸。這些形式重視即時反應，而非推理；追求簡短，而非清晰。

三、資訊取得被誤認為知識
學生能迅速找到答案，卻往往無法解釋、評估，或在陌生情境中應用這些資訊。表面的熟練掩蓋了淺層的理解。

四、人工智慧使識字歷程被捷徑化
當工具能即時生成文字時，學生便可能跳過建立理解與表達能力所需的掙扎歷程。編輯取代了思考，產出取代了理解。

五、閱讀耐力下降
許多學生覺得長篇文本在心理與認知上都令人疲憊。他們難以跨越多頁、甚至多段落來追蹤一個論點。

六、學校假設學生「已具備」識字能力，而非實際教授它
特別是在高表現學校中，識字能力常被視為理所當然，因此除了語言課程之外，很少被明確而系統地教導。

這並非地方性的問題。全球各地的教育者，在不同課綱、語言與社經背景下，都回報了相同的現象。問題不在於是否能進入學校，而在於學生與語言互動的品質。

當學生無法清楚地詮釋、分析、評估或表達意義時，學習便變得脆弱。知識無法遷移，批判思考能力削弱，民主參與、倫理判斷與明智決策的能力也隨之受損。

解方不在於禁止科技或增加測驗，而在於重新將識字能力視為共同的責任。

每一位教師都可以：

• 讓閱讀歷程變得可見
要求學生說明他們是「如何理解」一個問題的，而不只是給出答案。

• 放慢學習節奏
刻意安排重讀、註記與討論意義的時間。速度不應成為目標。

• 堅持解釋與論證
無論是在數學、科學或藝術課程中，學生都應經常以完整且連貫的語言說明自己的思考。

• 在情境中教授詞彙
各學科的專業語言必須被拆解、反覆使用，並實際應用。（可參考 PEN 手冊中的範例）

• 設計需要詮釋而非擷取的任務
沒有單一標準答案的問題，能迫使學生與文本與概念進行深度互動。

• 以透明且批判的方式使用 AI
若使用 AI，學生應分析、批評並改進產出，而非未經思考即提交。

最重要的是，教師應明確地「點名」識字能力。當學生理解閱讀、寫作與思考是所有學科的核心時，學習期待便會隨之改變。

識字能力已不再是學生能「順其自然學會」的技能。在一個語言氾濫卻缺乏深度的世界中，識字能力必須被有意識地教授、持續地練習，並刻意地保護。

它不是附加項目。
它不是某一個部門的責任。
它是教育的核心。

翻譯：ChatGPT

Critical Thinking - a Fragile Skill

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze information, evaluate evidence, recognize assumptions, and make reasoned judgments rather than simply recalling facts or repeating learned responses. It involves questioning, interpreting, synthesizing ideas, and applying knowledge to unfamiliar situations. In short, critical thinking is thinking that goes beyond what to why and how.

 Most educators agree on this definition in principle. In practice, however, many schools are discovering just how fragile this skill has become.

 Across education systems worldwide, schools increasingly identify critical thinking as an urgent area for development. Teachers observe that many students struggle when asked to explain their reasoning, justify choices, or solve problems without a prescribed method. This concern spans age groups, curricula, and national contexts.

 Several forces contribute to this decline. Social media, search engines, and now artificial intelligence provide instant answers, often without requiring learners to engage deeply with the underlying thinking. Students become accustomed to finding answers rather than constructing them. Over time, this erodes confidence in their own reasoning.

 The problem becomes particularly visible when internet access is removed. In classrooms where devices are restricted, or during examinations, students often grapple with tasks that require original thinking. When no ready-made answer appears on a screen, many are unsure how to begin.

 This gap is most evident in problem-solving situations that demand analysis rather than recall. Students may understand terminology and remember definitions, yet falter when asked to apply concepts to new contexts. Instead of experimenting with ideas, testing assumptions, or exploring multiple solutions, they search for familiar keywords and hope recognition will carry them through.

 The issue is not a lack of intelligence or effort. It is a learned dependency on external sources and fixed patterns of response.

 Another significant contributor lies within education systems themselves. In environments where success depends heavily on rote learning and memorization, students are rewarded for accuracy of recall rather than depth of understanding. Over time, they learn that reproducing information is safer than questioning it.

 When assessments emphasize right answers over reasoning, critical thinking becomes optional rather than essential. This creates learners who are well prepared for predictable tasks, but ill-equipped for complex or unfamiliar challenges.

One incident from my own teaching experience illustrates this vividly. While grading an AP Macroeconomics test paper, I encountered two identical wrong answers to a question that required higher-order thinking. Cheating was impossible. The students were seated far apart, and I controlled the test conditions tightly.

 When I spoke to the students afterward, the explanation emerged. Both had the same after-hours tutor, although they attended sessions separately. The tutor had provided model answers for common question types, which the students memorized. Faced with the test question, both students latched onto familiar keywords, failed to read the question carefully, and reproduced the memorized response verbatim.

 The irony was striking. The question was designed specifically to assess critical thinking, as Advanced Placement examinations require. The students’ preparation had trained them to bypass thinking altogether.

 This story is not about poor teaching or weak students. It is about systems that unintentionally prioritize shortcuts over understanding. If students are consistently shown that memorization leads to success, they will naturally rely on it, even when it fails them.

 Latching onto keywords and giving the memorized answer becomes a survival technique. A Grade 3 English teacher once told me that he asked a student, “How are you today?” and the child answered, “It’s sunny.” In the textbook, the question had been “How is the weather today?” The keyword was today. There was no thinking, just a memorized phrase.

 Rebuilding critical thinking requires deliberate effort. It means designing learning experiences that value process over product, reasoning over recall, and questions over answers. It also means helping students become comfortable with uncertainty and intellectual struggle.

 One practical and accessible resource that supports this work is “The Critical Thinking Companion” by WABISABI LEARNING. Rather than treating critical thinking as an abstract ideal, it offers concrete strategies and language that teachers can use across subjects and age levels. Resources like this matter because critical thinking does not develop by accident. It must be explicitly taught, modeled, and practiced.

 Critical thinking is not a luxury skill for advanced learners. It is a foundational capacity for navigating complexity, misinformation, and real-world problems. If schools want students who can think independently, then education must consistently demand independence of thought.

 The challenge is clear. The responsibility is shared. The work must begin with action research in everyday classrooms, one question at a time.

批判性思考——一項脆弱的能力

批判性思考是指分析資訊、評估證據、辨識假設，並做出有理有據的判斷，而不只是回憶事實或重複學過的回應。它包括提問、詮釋、整合想法，以及將知識應用於不熟悉的情境。簡言之，批判性思考就是超越「是什麼」，進而思考「為什麼」與「如何」。

多數教育工作者在原則上都同意這一定義。然而在實務中，許多學校正逐漸發現，這項能力其實有多麼脆弱。

在全球各地的教育體系中，學校愈來愈將批判性思考視為迫切需要發展的重點。教師觀察到，許多學生在被要求解釋自己的推理、為選擇提出理由，或在沒有既定方法的情況下解決問題時，往往感到困難。這樣的現象橫跨不同年齡層、課程體系與國家背景。

多種因素共同導致了這樣的退化。社群媒體、搜尋引擎，以及如今的人工智慧，都能即時提供答案，卻往往不要求學習者深入參與背後的思考過程。學生逐漸習慣於「找到」答案，而不是「建構」答案。久而久之，他們對自身推理能力的信心便被削弱。

當網路存取被移除時，問題便顯得格外明顯。在限制使用裝置的課堂中，或在考試期間，學生常常必須面對需要原創思考的任務。當螢幕上沒有現成答案出現時，許多人甚至不知道該如何開始。

這個落差在需要分析而非記憶的問題解決情境中表現得最為明顯。學生或許理解術語、記得定義，卻在被要求將概念應用於新情境時表現失常。他們不是嘗試想法、檢驗假設，或探索多種解決方案，而是尋找熟悉的關鍵字，並希望「看起來對」就能帶他們過關。

這個問題並非源自智力不足或努力不夠，而是一種對外部資源與固定回應模式的習得性依賴。

另一個重要的成因，其實來自教育體系本身。在高度依賴死記硬背與記憶學習的環境中，學生因為記憶準確而受到獎勵，而不是因為理解深度。久而久之，他們學會了複述資訊比提出質疑來得安全。

當評量強調正確答案勝過推理過程時，批判性思考便成為可有可無，而非不可或缺。這樣的制度培養出能應付可預測任務的學習者，卻難以面對複雜或陌生的挑戰。

我自身的一段教學經驗，生動地說明了這一點。在批改一份 AP 經濟學（總體經濟）考試試卷時，我發現有兩位學生在一道需要高層次思考的題目上，給出了完全相同的錯誤答案。作弊是不可能的。學生座位相距甚遠，而我也嚴格掌控了考試條件。

事後與學生談話時，原因才逐漸浮現。兩人都有同一位課後家教，雖然並非同時上課。這位家教為常見題型提供了「標準答案」，要求學生背誦。面對考試題目時，兩位學生都抓住了熟悉的關鍵字，沒有仔細閱讀題目內容，而是逐字重現了背過的答案。

其中的諷刺意味十分明顯。這道題目正是為了評量批判性思考而設計，這也是 AP 考試的核心要求。然而，學生所接受的準備卻訓練他們完全繞過思考。

這個故事並不是關於不良教學或能力不足的學生，而是關於那些無意間將捷徑置於理解之上的制度。如果學生一再被告知，死記硬背等同於成功，他們自然會依賴這種方式，即使在它失效時也是如此。

抓住關鍵字並給出背誦過的答案，逐漸成了一種求生技巧。一位三年級英文老師曾告訴我，他問學生：「你今天過得如何？」孩子回答：「天氣晴朗。」在課本中，問題原本是：「今天天氣如何？」關鍵字是「今天」。沒有思考，只有背過的句子。

重建批判性思考需要有意識的努力。這意味著設計重視過程而非結果、重視推理而非記憶、重視提問而非答案的學習經驗。同時，也意味著幫助學生逐漸適應不確定性與思考上的掙扎。

一項實用且容易上手、能支持這項工作的資源是 WABISABI LEARNING 出版的《The Critical Thinking Companion》。它並未將批判性思考視為抽象理想，而是提供具體策略與語言，讓教師能在不同學科與年齡層中加以運用。這類資源之所以重要，是因為批判性思考並不會自然發展，它必須被明確地教授、示範，並反覆練習。

批判性思考並非進階學習者的奢侈能力，而是一項用來應對複雜性、錯誤資訊與真實世界問題的基礎能力。如果學校希望學生能夠獨立思考，那麼教育就必須持續要求思想上的獨立。

挑戰已經很清楚。責任是共同的。而這項工作，必須從日常課堂中的行動研究開始，一次一個問題。

Action Research - the Heart of Continuous School Improvement

In every accredited school, continuous improvement is expected, but it only becomes meaningful when it moves out of documents and meetings and into real classrooms with real teachers and real students.

 Action research is the bridge that makes this happen. It gives teachers a structured way to understand their learners more deeply, to test new ideas, and to refine their own practice. In the PEN system, this process becomes even more powerful because it is deliberately two-pronged: teachers investigate what their students need, and at the same time they consciously focus on their own professional growth.

 The starting point is always the learners. A good action research question grows out of something the teacher notices: perhaps the students struggle to express themselves clearly, or their problem-solving is inconsistent, or they participate unevenly in group work. Sometimes the trigger is assessment data, standardized testing, perhaps a pattern observed across classes. Often it will be something that emerges from PLC conversations.

 In the PEN system, this is only half of the inquiry. The teacher also considers what they need to strengthen in their methodology to address these learner needs. This could be anything from modelling and questioning techniques to scaffolding, lesson structure, or the way feedback is given. Their understanding of the Framework for Teaching, along with peer observations, self-reflection, and feedback from a supervisor, helps the teacher identify which aspects of their own practice will become part of the research cycle.

 The teacher then designs a short set of lessons that allows them to test a promising strategy. This is where action meets inquiry. The lessons are carefully planned, not as isolated activities, but as deliberate steps that respond to the learners’ needs while also stretching the teacher’s skills. If a teacher is working on improving academic discussions, they may introduce sentence frames, adjust the questioning sequence, and model how to respond. If writing is the focus, they may try new approaches to modelling, conferencing, or using exemplars. In every case, the teacher is watching both sides of the story: how students respond, and how they adjust their methodology to support better learning.

 As the lessons unfold, evidence begins to appear. It doesn’t come from complicated spreadsheets or statistical analysis; it comes from the natural rhythm of classroom life. The teacher gathers exit tickets, listens to student talk, notices how learners engage with a task, compares early work with later work, and observes whether learning behaviours begin to shift.

 Alongside this, the teacher also reflects on their own practice: What did I change in my teaching? What surprised me? What worked more effectively than I expected? What should I adjust tomorrow? These reflections, supported by peer or supervisor feedback, form an essential part of the PEN process.

 Formative assessment becomes the guide that helps the teacher adjust in real time. It answers the quiet but essential question: “Is this working?” Sometimes the teacher realizes the students need more modelling, or a slower pace, or a clearer scaffold. At other times the strategy is effective, but a small modification will help it reach more students. For the teacher’s own growth, the formative moments are equally important. They begin to notice their habits, their instructional moves, the moments when they are clear and the moments when they are not. This is professional growth embedded in daily practice.

At the end of the cycle, a summative moment provides clarity. Students complete a final task—a piece of writing, a comprehension check, a speaking performance, or simply a new demonstration of understanding—and the teacher compares it to the starting point. The impact often becomes visible in subtle but meaningful ways: greater confidence, clearer thinking, stronger explanations, more engagement, or more accurate language.

 The teacher also looks at themselves: What did I learn about teaching? What have I improved? What should I carry forward to my next unit? This dual reflection is what gives the PEN system its strength.

 When teachers share their action research within their PLCs, the impact grows beyond one classroom. Their insights help colleagues facing similar challenges, and the collective learning begins to influence schoolwide practices. In accredited schools, this becomes invaluable. The evidence and reflections feed directly into the continuous school improvement cycle, shaping schoolwide learner outcomes, informing action plans, and strengthening the school’s culture of reflection and growth.

 In the end, action research is not a task to complete but a habit of mind. It shifts the focus from “What did I teach?” to “What did they learn, and how did I grow because of it?” In the PEN system, this habit becomes a way of life. Teachers improve because they understand their learners more deeply and because they continually refine their own methodology. Students improve because their teachers are intentional, reflective, and supported by a system that values professional growth.

This is the essence of continuous school improvement: a school becoming stronger each day through the thoughtful, informed actions of the people who work closest to the learners. And that is why action research sits at the centre of PEN. It honors the teacher as both learner and expert, and it ensures that every step forward is grounded in evidence, reflection, and shared purpose.

 If you would like to have additional information and a template for experimental lesson plans, write to us at: pen.info.edu@gmail.com

行動研究 —— 持續學校改進的核心

在每一所通過認證的學校中，持續改進是被期待的，但只有當它從文件與會議中走出，進入真實的教室、真實的教師與真實的學生之間時，才會變得有意義。

行動研究是促成這一切的橋樑。它為教師提供一個有結構的方式，更深入地理解學習者、測試新想法，並精進自己的教學實踐。在 PEN 系統中，這個過程變得更為強大，因為它是刻意的雙向設計：教師探究學生的需求，同時有意識地聚焦於自己的專業成長。

起點永遠是學習者。一個良好的行動研究問題源自教師的觀察：也許學生在清晰表達自己時有困難，或解決問題時不一致，或在小組合作中參與度不均。有時觸發點是評量數據、標準化測驗，或是在跨班級觀察中發現的某種模式。它常常也會在 PLC 的對話中浮現。

在 PEN 系統中，這只是探究的一半。教師也會思考自己在教學方法上需要加強的部分，以回應這些學習需求。這可能包括示範與提問技巧、鷹架、課程架構，或提供回饋的方式。他們對《教學框架》（Framework for Teaching）的理解，加上同儕觀課、自我反思與督導回饋，都能協助教師辨識出自身教學實踐中需要納入研究循環的面向。

接著，教師會設計一小組課程，使他們能測試一個有前景的策略。這就是行動與探究相遇的地方。這些課程經過細緻設計，不是孤立的活動，而是回應學習者需求的刻意步驟，同時也拓展教師的技巧。若教師致力於提升學術討論能力，他們可能會引入句型框架、調整提問順序，並示範如何回應。若焦點是寫作，他們可能會嘗試新的示範方式、寫作會談或範例文本的運用。在每一種情況中，教師都在觀察這一段故事的雙面向：學生如何回應，以及他們如何調整自己的方法以支持更好的學習。

隨著課程推進，證據開始浮現。這些證據不是來自複雜的試算表或統計分析，而是來自教室生活自然的節奏。教師收集離堂紙條（exit tickets）、聆聽學生的口語、注意學習者如何投入任務、比較早期與後期的作品，並觀察學習行為是否開始改變。

與此同時，教師也反思自己的實踐：我在教學中改變了什麼？什麼讓我感到意外？什麼比我預期的更有效？明天我應該調整什麼？這些反思，在同儕或督導回饋的支持下，構成 PEN 流程中不可或缺的一部分。

形成性評量成為指引，使教師能在實時中做出調整。它回答那個安靜卻重要的問題：「有效嗎？」有時教師意識到學生需要更多示範、更慢的步調或更清晰的鷹架。有時策略是有效的，但小幅度的調整能使其惠及更多學生。對教師自身的成長而言，形成性的片刻同樣重要。他們開始注意自己的習慣、教學行為、清晰的時刻與不清晰的時刻。這就是嵌入日常實踐的專業成長。

在循環結束時，總結性的時刻帶來清晰。學生完成一項最終任務──一篇寫作、一項理解測驗、一段口語表現，或只是新的理解展示──而教師將其與起點進行比較。影響往往以微妙但重要的方式變得可見：更大的自信、更清晰的思考、更強的解釋能力、更高的參與度，或更準確的語言。

教師也檢視自己：我對教學學到了什麼？我改善了什麼？下一個單元我應該延續什麼？這種雙重反思正是 PEN 系統的力量所在。

當教師在 PLC 中分享他們的行動研究時，影響力超越了一間教室。他們的洞見能幫助面臨相似挑戰的同事，而集體的學習開始影響全校層面的實踐。在通過認證的學校中，這具有無價的價值。這些證據與反思直接融入持續的學校改進循環，塑造校級學習者成果、提供行動計畫的資訊，並強化學校的反思與成長文化。

最終，行動研究不是一項待完成的任務，而是一種思維習慣。它將焦點從「我教了什麼？」轉向「他們學到了什麼？而我因此如何成長？」在 PEN 系統中，這種習慣成為生活方式。教師精進，是因為他們更深入地理解學習者，並持續改進自己的方法。學生進步，是因為他們的教師具有目標性、反思能力，並受到一個重視專業成長的系統支持。

這就是持續學校改進的真諦：透過那些最貼近學習者的教育工作者深思熟慮、資訊充分的行動，一所學校每天都在變得更強。而這正是行動研究位居 PEN 核心的原因。它尊崇教師同時是學習者與專家，並確保每一步都立基於證據、反思與共同的使命。

若您希望獲得更多資訊或實驗課程計畫的模板，請寫信至：pen.info.edu@gmail.com

THE 6 MOST COMMON MISTAKES SCHOOLS MAKE IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT - and how to avoid them

Schools don’t fail at PD because people don’t care. They fail because the structure isn’t right. I’ve had significant contact with schools, and the same PD patterns appear again and again. The good news? These mistakes are easy to fix once you see them.

Here are six of the most common traps — and what to do instead.

1. Too many “events,” not enough follow-through

A big conference, an enjoyable workshop, an outside speaker, a PD day with excellent snacks…
Then nothing happens.

Teachers return to their classrooms and carry on exactly as before — not because they don’t want to improve, but because improvement needs structure, not fireworks.

Build on this through Job-embedded PD. Create a rhythm for the school: PLC meetings, action research, shared reflection, evaluation. Small steps, taken consistently, incorporate those big events and make them meaningful change agents.

2. PD chosen by trend instead of by student need

A shiny new method appears online and suddenly everyone must learn it, the buzzwords are everywhere — even if it has nothing to do with the school’s learners.

Start with the only question that matters: “What do our students need right now?” Does this align with our learners’ needs? Was it something that came our of a university’s ivory tower and now everyone is fired up about it?
Investigate, discuss and then plan PD around that if it has the lasting value that will make an impact on your students’ learning.

In my several decades in education I have seen trends burst onto the scene, the buzzwords flying in every meeting, enthusiastic school leaders expecting all their teachers to implement the latest trend, and a few years later the whole thing had fizzled out like the New Year’s Eve fireworks.

3. Theory with no classroom reality

Teachers listen politely to long presentations… and nobody knows what to do with the information.

Give teachers something they can actually use tomorrow morning. Clear strategies, examples, modelling, and a chance to test ideas and see how they work with their own students. Give the teachers something substantial that can be tested out in experimental lessons and discussed in their PLCs.

4. Treating evaluation as punishment

In many schools, evaluation is a tense, secretive process that arrives once a year and causes mild panic. I even heard a school leader call it “performance appraisal”. Ouch!

Evaluation should be guidance, not fear. Use a clear, shared framework. The most comprehensive evaluation tool is Danielson’s Framework for Teaching which is  “A guide for reflection, observation, and conversation” (Enhancing Professional Practice, 3rd ed. (ASCD, 2024).)

When using The Framework for Teaching as an evaluation tool, everyone knows what good teaching looks like. When teachers use the rubric for self-reflection and peer evaluation, the whole tone changes.

5. Expecting teachers to grow alone

If PD depends on individual effort in isolated classrooms, it will not last. Teachers need to talk, compare notes, and look at student work together.

Transformation can only happen through shared practice. Build real PLCs. When teachers plan together, investigate student needs together, and share their findings, improvement spreads across the whole school — not just one classroom.

6. No one leading the process

Even excellent PD ideas fall apart if no one is constantly steering the ship. PD cannot survive on conference enthusiasm alone. Job-embedded BP needs for all leaders to be on board.

Leaders need to protect time, set expectations, encourage reflection, and follow up. When  leaders take PD seriously, teachers feel supported and valued — and the culture shifts.

 學校在專業發展中最常犯的六大錯誤

— 以及如何避免它們**

學校在專業發展上之所以失敗，並不是因為大家不在乎，而是因為缺乏適當的架構。我與許多學校密切接觸過，而同樣的專業發展模式一次又一次地出現。好消息是：一旦看清問題，這些錯誤其實非常容易修正。

以下是六個常見的陷阱——以及更好的做法。

1. 太多「活動」，缺乏後續追蹤

一場大型會議、一個令人愉快的工作坊、一位外聘講者、一個有豐盛茶點的專業發展日……
然後什麼都沒改變。

老師回到教室後依然照舊上課，並不是因為他們不願意改進，而是因為改進需要的是系統性的架構，而不是煙火式的活動。

透過**職務嵌入式專業發展（Job-embedded PD）**強化此部分。為學校建立一個穩定的節奏：PLC 會議、行動研究、共同反思、評鑑。將這些大活動納入一個長期持續的系統中，才能真正轉化成具體的改變。

學校建立一個穩定的節奏：PLC 會議、行動研究、共同反思、評鑑。將這些大活動納入一個長期持續的系統中，才能真正轉化成具體的改變。

2. 以潮流為導向的 PD，而非學生需求

某個全新的教學法在網路上爆紅，於是大家都必須學，流行語滿天飛——即使它與學校學生的需求毫無關聯。

請從唯一重要的問題開始：
「我們的學生現在需要什麼？」
它是否符合學習者的需求？這是否只是某所大學象牙塔裡冒出的理論，如今大家一窩蜂跟風？

調查、討論，若其內容具備長期價值且能真正影響學生學習，再據此規劃 PD。

在我數十年的教育生涯中，我看過無數教育潮流華麗登場，校務會議上流行語四處飛舞，校長熱情地要求所有老師採用最新方法；幾年後，那些潮流卻像跨年煙火般迅速熄滅。

3. 理論脫離課堂現實

老師們禮貌地聽了冗長的簡報……但沒有人知道下一步該怎麼做。

給老師一些隔天早上就能用得上的東西：清楚的策略、示例、示範教學，以及在自己班級試行的機會。讓老師們在「實驗課」中測試新做法，並在 PLC 中討論其成效。

4. 把評鑑當成懲罰

在許多學校，評鑑是一年一次、令人緊張且半神秘的作業，帶著一點驚慌。我甚至聽過一位學校領導人把它叫作「績效考核」。——哎喲！

評鑑應該是引導，而不是恐懼。請使用一套清晰且具共識的架構。最全面的工具是 Danielson 教學框架（The Framework for Teaching），它是
「一份用於反思、觀察與對話的指南」
（Enhancing Professional Practice, 3rd ed., ASCD, 2024）。

使用 FFT 作為評鑑工具時，每個人都清楚什麼是高品質的教學。當教師以此作為自我反思與同儕互評的依據，整個氛圍便會完全改變。

5. 期待老師獨自成長

如果 PD 依靠每位老師在孤立的教室裡單打獨鬥，它永遠不會持久。老師們需要交流、比較、一起研究學生的作品。

真正的轉變來自於分享實踐。建立真正的 PLC。當老師們一起規劃、共同探究學生需求、分享發現時，改變便會從個別教室擴展至整所學校。

6. 沒有人帶領這個過程

即使再出色的 PD 構想，也會因為缺乏持續的領導而瓦解。專業發展不能靠研討會上的熱情來維持。職務嵌入式 PD（Job-embedded PD）需要所有領導者全程投入。

領導者必須保留 PD 時間、建立明確期望、鼓勵反思並持續跟進。當領導者認真看待 PD，老師會感到支持與被重視——而校園文化也會隨之改變。

由 ChatGPT 翻譯

Using Danielson’s Framework for Teaching to Strengthen Practice and Improve Learning

The PEN system uses a reliable, research-based tool to assess how teachers develop in their individual practice while refining their methodology to meet learner needs. That tool is Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (FFT) — one of the most tried and tested evaluation frameworks in education today. It provides a clear structure for professional reflection and a common language for discussing teaching across grade levels and subject areas. It is one of the pillars of the PEN system.

 Within the PEN system, the FFT becomes more than an instrument for appraisal; it is a guide for growth. Teachers conduct self-evaluations across all four FFT domains:

Domain 1 - Planning and Preparation

Domain 2 - The Classroom Environment

Domain 3 -  Instruction

Domain 4 -  Professional Responsibilities

 These four areas cover everything from lesson design and classroom management to student engagement and professional ethics, offering a complete picture of effective teaching.

 Self-evaluation across all four domains helps teachers see the connections between how they plan, how they teach, and how their decisions affect learning. From there, they design  experimental lessons and action research projects focused on specific learner needs, turning reflection into classroom improvement.

 Peer and supervisory evaluations add a second perspective. Classroom observations under the PEN system concentrate on Domains 2 and 3 — The Classroom Environment and Instruction — where teaching and learning are most visible. These domains examine how the classroom functions as a community of learning and how instruction engages students, uses questioning, and checks for understanding.

 Supervisors may choose to conduct a full four-domain evaluation or focus on these two domains when the purpose is specifically classroom growth. This flexibility keeps evaluation meaningful, fair, and time-efficient.

 Because the FFT is comprehensive and transparent, it helps schools sustain consistent expectations while supporting professional autonomy. Teachers and evaluators work from the same evidence base, keeping the process focused on improving student learning rather than completing forms.

 Schools adopting the PEN system are able to access to the FFT both in its traditional format and through a secure online version provided by an external provider who works closely with the Danielson’s Group. (Contact us for more information.) This allows teams to document evidence, monitor progress, and track growth over time — an efficient way to support a culture of continuous professional learning.

 The FFT remains one of the most reliable tools available to educators, and within the PEN system it anchors a balanced process of reflection, collaboration, and measurable improvement in teaching.

 Part of the Transforming Teaching Through Shared Practice series by Professional Educators Network (PEN).

以教學框架強化教學實踐與學習成效

PEN 系統運用一個可靠且以研究為基礎的工具，評估教師在個人教學實踐中的成長，同時精進其教學方法以符合學生的學習需求。這個工具就是 夏洛特・丹尼爾森（Charlotte Danielson）的《教學框架》（Framework for Teaching，簡稱 FFT）——當今教育界最經得起時間考驗且最受信任的教師評鑑架構之一。它為專業省思提供清晰的結構，也建立了一種跨年級、跨學科的共同語言，用以探討教學。

在 PEN 系統中，FFT 不僅僅是一個評鑑工具，更是一個成長導引。教師會依據 FFT 的四個領域進行自我評估：
第一領域 — 教學計畫與準備
第二領域 — 課室環境
第三領域 — 教學實施
第四領域 — 專業責任

這四個範疇涵蓋了從課程設計與課堂管理，到學生參與與專業倫理的一切，提供了對有效教學的完整視角。

在四個領域的自我評估能幫助教師看清「如何計畫」、「如何教學」以及「這些決策如何影響學習」之間的關聯。接著，教師會設計實驗性課程與行動研究，針對特定的學習需求進行探究，將省思轉化為課堂上的具體改進。

同儕與主管的評估則提供第二個觀點。在 PEN 系統中，課堂觀察著重於 第二與第三領域——「課室環境」與「教學實施」，也就是教與學最具體呈現的地方。這些領域觀察課堂如何作為一個學習社群運作，以及教學如何吸引學生、運用提問並檢核理解。

主管可以選擇進行涵蓋四個領域的完整評估，或僅聚焦於這兩個課室相關領域，當評鑑目標特別針對課堂成長時。這樣的彈性讓評鑑更具意義、公平且節省時間。

由於 FFT 架構完整且透明，它能幫助學校維持一致的期望，同時支持教師的專業自主。教師與評鑑者以相同的依據進行對話，使整個過程專注於提升學生學習，而非僅僅填寫表格。

採用 PEN 系統的學校可同時使用 FFT 的傳統紙本形式，或透過與 **丹尼爾森集團（Danielson Group）**密切合作的外部提供者所提供的安全線上版本。這讓團隊能記錄證據、追蹤進展並觀察長期成長——是一種有效支持持續專業學習文化的方式。

FFT 仍是教育工作者最可靠的工具之一，而在 PEN 系統中，它穩固地奠定了省思、協作與可衡量的教學改進之間的平衡。

出自 專業教育者網絡（Professional Educators Network）《透過共享實踐轉化教學》（Transforming Teaching Through Shared Practice）系列。

由 Chat GPT 翻譯

PLC Leadership Lessons

Every school has teachers who quietly bring people together. They are the ones who keep discussions focused, who notice when someone’s struggling and offer to assist, they often turn a good idea into a shared one. Those are your PLC leaders, though they don’t always wear a title. The PEN system recognizes those teachers and put them where these people skills can be used and honed.

 A Professional Learning Community doesn’t run on enthusiasm alone. It needs leadership — someone who can turn conversation into collaboration and collaboration into growth.

When I designed the PEN System, I saw how much the quality of a PLC depends on how its leader shapes the space: how they listen, frame questions, and help their peers connect learning goals to what’s actually happening in their classrooms.

Good PLC leaders do far more than arrange meetings or fill out forms. They keep the group anchored on student learning, not administration. They encourage every voice, especially the quiet ones. They notice patterns in classroom data and help the team decide what to do next. Most importantly, they lead their colleagues to bring the ideas teachers collect from books, conferences, webinars, or workshops back to the group and turn them into something practical — something that can be tried the following week, not shelved and forgotten.

They provide the framework for using those ideas when teachers do action research and share their results in their PLC.

 When a teachers do experimental lessons to improve methodology, the PLC leader is there to encourage them. When teachers examine the work of struggling students, the PLC leader directs the meeting and makes sure that everyone participates.

 When this happens, the whole school changes. Knowledge stops belonging to individuals and starts circulating. A teacher who attended a workshop on reading fluency, for example, can share what worked, others adapt it, and within a few weeks the impact reaches dozens of classrooms. That’s how best practice becomes shared practice — the heartbeat of the PEN System.

 A good PLC leader doesn’t control the conversation; they guide it. They understand that professional growth is both personal and collective. They model reflection, honesty, and curiosity, and they create a space where teachers feel safe to take small risks — to try something new, share what happened, and learn from both success and struggle.

 Schools thrive when professional learning is led by teachers, not imposed on them. PLC leaders are the quiet architects of that change — building bridges between ideas and action, between professional development and classroom reality. In every great school, you’ll find them: the people who make shared practice possible, but in the PEN system they get recognized for it.

PLC領導的啟示

在每一所學校裡，總有一些老師默默地把人聚在一起。他們讓討論保持焦點，留意到有人遇到困難時主動伸出援手，也常常能把一個好點子變成集體的行動。這些人就是PLC的領導者，雖然他們未必有正式的頭銜。PEN系統認可這些老師，並讓他們的溝通與協調能力得到充分發揮與磨練。

專業學習社群（PLC）並非僅靠熱情就能運作。它需要領導力——需要有人能把對話轉化為合作，並把合作轉化為成長。
當我設計PEN系統時，我看見一個PLC的品質，很大程度取決於其領導者如何營造空間：他們如何傾聽、如何提出問題，並如何協助同儕將學習目標與實際教學情境連結起來。

優秀的PLC領導者遠不只是安排會議或填寫表格。他們讓團隊始終以學生的學習為核心，而非行政事務。他們鼓勵每一個聲音被聽見，尤其是那些平時較安靜的老師。他們觀察學生學習數據中的模式，引導團隊決定下一步行動。最重要的是，他們帶領同事把從書籍、研討會、網路講座或工作坊中獲得的想法帶回團隊，並轉化為可實踐的策略——那些可以在下週就嘗試的點子，而不是被擱置或遺忘的資料。
他們為教師行動研究提供架構，讓這些想法能被應用、被測試，並在PLC中分享成果。

當老師們為改進教學方法而進行實驗課時，PLC領導者會在旁鼓勵他們；當老師們檢視學習困難學生的作品時，PLC領導者主持會議，確保每個人都參與討論。

當這樣的文化形成時，整所學校都會改變。知識不再屬於個別教師，而是流動共享的。一位參加閱讀流暢度研習的老師，能分享有效的策略，其他人再加以調整與應用，短短幾週後，影響力已擴散至數十個教室。這就是如何讓最佳實踐變成共享實踐——PEN系統的核心精神。

優秀的PLC領導者不主導對話，而是引導它。他們明白專業成長既是個人的，也是集體的。他們以反思、誠實與好奇作為榜樣，並營造一個讓老師敢於嘗試新事物、分享經驗、從成功與挑戰中學習的安全環境。

當專業學習由老師主導而非被外力推動時，學校才能真正茁壯。PLC領導者正是這種改變的靜默建築師——他們在理念與行動之間、在專業發展與教學實踐之間搭起橋樑。在每一所優秀的學校裡，你都會找到他們——那些讓共享實踐成為可能的人，而在PEN系統中，他們的努力也會被看見與肯定。

由ChatGPT翻譯

Action Research to Enhance Student Learning

Have you ever had one of those moments when you look around your classroom and think, something’s not quite clicking here? The students are trying, you’re trying, but the learning just isn’t landing the way you hoped. That’s usually where the magic of curiosity begins—and in the PEN system, that curiosity has a name: action research.

Action research is really just a structured way of doing what good teachers already do. It starts with a question. Not a grand academic question, but an honest one: What am I seeing in my classroom, and how can I make it better? From there, it’s all about testing ideas, trying new approaches, collecting evidence, and reflecting on what happens. No jargon, no over-complication—just inquiry with purpose and keeping a record of it for later discussion.

In the PEN model, this isn’t an extra task squeezed in between grading and report cards. It’s part of the rhythm of teaching. It’s how growth happens—from the inside out. Teachers become researchers in their own classrooms, not because someone told them to, but because the school has a culture of teachers curious about improving learning.

The best part is that no one does it alone. Within Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) those regular, scheduled PLC meetings - teachers share what they’ve tried. Sometimes it’s a short reflection, sometimes it’s a video clip, sometimes it’s just a “this didn’t work as planned” story. These conversations are where the real learning happens. You hear someone else’s idea, it sparks a new thought, and suddenly you’re trying something different with your own students.

These sessions aren’t about judging or showing off—they’re about professional honesty. Teachers give feedback, ask questions, and help each other look at things from new angles. Student needs are not unique, there are trends and often shared concerns. Maybe someone notices that a certain strategy worked better with younger learners. Maybe another teacher sees how to adapt it for students who need more support. Slowly, the room fills with collective expertise, built from real classrooms and real students. It’s not information from someone in an ivory tower who never teaches students older than graduate level.

Sometimes, study groups emerge naturally from this kind of collaboration. A few teachers decide to dig deeper into a problem - say, reading comprehension or student engagement - and before long, they’re running their own mini research project. It’s professional development that’s alive, not locked away in a conference handout or hidden in a forgotten USB file.

And when teachers start looking closely at student work, the discoveries multiply. Instead of just checking answers, they begin to notice patterns - where thinking breaks down, which questions confuse students, what really captures their attention. It’s not about assigning grades anymore; it’s about understanding how students learn.

In the bigger picture, action research connects to the school’s goals. Teachers use data, often from their own testing, or from standardized tests, to focus on the real learner needs that matter most. One of those, across almost every school worldwide, is literacy. Reading and writing challenges don’t just belong to language teachers. They spill over into Science, Social Studies, even Math. Through action research, teachers across subjects can work together to address these gaps and strengthen learning for everyone.

Action research is not some academic add-on. It’s the heart of professional growth in the PEN model. It’s teachers saying, “Let’s figure this out together,” and then doing it with purpose, curiosity, and sometimes courage. It’s about testing, reflecting, sharing, and, most importantly, improving learning for the students right in front of you.

In the end, that’s what makes it powerful: it keeps teachers learning just as much as the students do and that takes us to the next discussion – self-evaluation and action research to improve one’s own teaching.

Contact us for a free PEN Handbook.

Professional Development that Benefits Everyone

Have you ever been sent to a conference where you experienced one of the following?

Conference A is packed with session after session of information. Keynote speakers talk about their research and their great new ideas. Among all those breakaway sessions, you can’t find enough that relates directly to your teaching or your students’ learning needs to keep you interested for three days. Still, you feel it’s your duty to attend as many sessions as possible, hoping to pass on something useful to a colleague. So, you sit through workshops that don’t really connect with your daily experience in the classroom.

Conference B is packed with useful information. There are so many breakaway sessions to choose from that it takes some fine-tuning to select those most appropriate to your teaching. The keynote speakers are inspiring, and delegates are basking in new ideas. The networking is meaningful. You leave the conference after three days bursting with enthusiasm and a renewed sense of purpose.

Then back to school. If colleagues ask about the conference, they’re seldom truly interested in hearing about the inspiring keynote address or looking at the slides released to delegates. Even if you attended a workshop you thought might benefit them, finding time to talk becomes difficult. They have papers to grade, exams to set, and lessons to plan. Classroom management strategies for that difficult class often take second place to simply coping at the coalface.

Both scenarios leave conference delegates with dwindling inspiration. The initial enthusiasm soon disappears under piles of student books and presentations, test papers, and behaviour issues—until the next conference comes around. This is how formal professional development usually works. Do you also find the forgotten conference materials from four or five years ago at the back of the cupboard or on and old USB somewhere?

Is there a way to share and retain, even expand, the knowledge delegates gain?
That question bothered the designer of the PEN System. How could a school make sure that everyone benefits from new ideas and knowledge when there is usually no budget for sending everyone to an international conference with first-class speakers.  The answer became part of the multi-pronged PEN system that eventually translates this new knowledge into addressing student needs, not only for the conference delegate’s students, but  to bring about transformation through shared practice.

Both Job-Embedded Professional Development (JEPD) and Formal Professional Development, such as conferences, seminars, webinars, short courses and workshops, have their rightful place within the PEN Framework. Each is planned and purposeful, designed to meet the evolving needs of educators. While JEPD supports ongoing growth through daily practice and collaboration, formal PD offers structured opportunities to deepen knowledge and expand instructional repertoire. One should enhance the other.

JEPD happens where teaching happens — in the moment, in the classroom, among peers. It is contextual, reflective, and owned by the teacher. It invites experimentation, celebrates curiosity, and builds a culture where learning and sharing that knowledge is part of the work, not an interruption to it.

Formal professional development. These experiences introduce teachers to new perspectives, new research, and innovative approaches that may not emerge naturally in the day-to-day rhythm of school life. The challenge is ensuring that this knowledge doesn’t vanish into forgotten folders, unshared notes, or unvisited slides once the excitement fades.

This is where the PEN framework bridges the two. It provides a clear process: teachers begin with honest self-reflection, examine data from their own students, and connect their goals to the broader vision of the school. From that point forward, their professional development becomes a living plan — dynamic, tailored, and continuously shaped by their practice. Formal PD becomes fuel for ongoing inquiry, feeding into the conversations and actions that define JEPD.

How? It is a plan that lives in dialogue — between educators, between individual aspirations and school-wide goals. When do busy teachers make the time for this? This is where knowledge sharing in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) comes in. The time for sharing is scheduled, and participation is compulsory.

A PLC is more than a group of teachers working together. Collaboration must be structured and purposeful, focused on improving student learning through continuous educator development. This is where those great lessons from formal PD sessions find their next life — not forgotten at the back of a cupboard or on an unused hard drive, but brought into discussion, adapted, and applied to bring about transformation through shared practice.

At its core, a PLC must bring educators together in a cycle of inquiry: they collectively identify learning goals, examine student data, discuss and implement new strategies, and reflect on their impact.

The strength of a PLC lies in shared responsibility. Teachers no longer work in isolation but as part of a team that grows together through dialogue, feedback, and mutual support. Regular meetings give space to talk about student progress, teaching ideas, and what’s actually working in the classroom.

PLCs aren’t divided by subject, but by teachers working with the same age group — keeping every conversation relevant, practical, and immediately useful to everyone.

In our next blog post, we’ll talk about action research and how it fits in with the teacher’s personal growth as well as the learning needs of the students.

For our handbook describing the PEN Framework in detail, contact us, it’s free of charge.