I just finished attending an EdCampUvic conference via zoom, which is a form of professional development for teachers with some key differences from what a typical professional development workshop consists of. This specific experience was with the education cohort of the University of Victoria; however, it conceptually generalizes to the EdCamp organization which is simply broader in scope and attendance. When I think of a typical Pro-D day—in terms of format—I have expectations I will receive information that may contribute to my professional interests by choosing from a selection of given topics where contributing professionals are scheduled to share their knowledge and resources through a presentation, speech, workshop, and so on. A key difference utilized in the EdCampVic program is that it is participant-driven rather than presenter-driven, and thus, learning and engagement is distributed through conversation (where participants have equal opportunity to contribute) rather than planned presentations. For instance, it is the participating educators who collaboratively determine the topics of engagement through polling prior to the workshop. Furthermore, it is open to educators of all levels and specializations, and, in the interest of maximizing learning, educators are free to enter or leave any of the open sessions throughout, so their interests and needs are best met. This format follows a model of differentiated learning, which is an educational style that promotes opportunity for learner’s individual differences within a curriculum. It is education tailored to fit the variance of needs and strengths of a body of learners within a curriculum.

Although I had the opportunity to join and leave any session as I pleased, I stuck with one which was titled “Cross Curricular Inquiry in High School.” The open discussion format—which facilitated the experiences and ideas of both seasoned, expert educators, and teacher candidates alike—was immediately beneficial because it promoted relationship building and external awareness—aspects often absent in formats that facilitates a presenter and an audience. This way, I was able to express some of my ideas, experiences, questions, and concerns about applying cross-curricular instruction when I enter the teaching profession and I obtain dynamic feedback in multiple forms and perspectives. Moreover, my viewpoint as a teacher candidate may have—and hopefully—promoted thought and perspective in the more advanced educators in the session, allowing them to explore their wealth of knowledge through a different lens. An observation that stuck with me throughout the experience was the fact that discussions often took life of their own and freely explored the space of the intended topic, while constantly diverging into other topics, stories, resources, philosophies and so on. No matter what the divergence was, it fit nicely with the cross-curricular topic because it really examined the interrelatedness of knowledge and subjects and how robust learning can be when constraints are lifted. It also supported differentiated learning because it allowed participants to engage in any way they felt comfortable, including speaking, asking questions, posting resources, writing, and silently observing.

It is not hard to see how this format would benefit a classroom setting. I am entering into the profession of secondary education and in such a setting, allowing students to discover and select their interests and curiosities through low-risk, conversational discussion, would be extremely beneficial for learning in general, but more precisely, applying it to place- or community-based learning and cross-curricular education. Imagine a scenario where you ask students to engage in place-based learning in an outdoor setting. There are plants that have stories, are used as medicine, that have molecular physiology, that follow mathematical patterns in growth, and that are homes and food to other organisms—that is just one word, plant. If you constrain the learner by making only one subject (ie mathematics) open to observation, the student may have to abandon the object that spiked their learning curiosity. The fact is, most things are connected or interrelated in some fashion or another and by allowing for more dynamic and robust curricula (ones that are collaborative), the educational quality follows. Through my observational practicums, I have observed that teachers often don’t want to step on their colleagues curricular toes meaning that they might intentionally exclude learning about some topic because another class covers it in a different year or subject. This observation demonstrates how important building relationships and collaborating with colleagues is when trying to develop a cross-curricular program—you need others on board too. Getting others on board is often difficult because change is always of that nature; however, when I asked for suggestions in how to begin implementing cross-curricular education, I received some excellent feedback. From Christine, my Pedagogy, Curriculum and Teaching instructor at UNBC, I received feedback that really resonated, which was that you need to be disruptive and build relationships. To be disruptive alone can cause negative outcomes and a lot of stress, but if you are constantly doing your best to demonstrate how effective the change could be while building positive relationships and respect among colleagues, the problem is solvable. Another educational professional noted that you can start without colleagues on board by practicing cross-curricula within your own class to set an example and demonstrate success that will attract others. Going forward into my career as an educator, I hope to take this advice and develop systems of teaching that incorporate cross-curricular learning which includes place-based learning and department collaboration through example.