we both love taking action, so.
[LAUGH] >> You are action, action oriented.
>> Action figures.
So, the ability to act, and act in spontaneous ways to bring some of
the joy of the arts into our work is really, really important.
And I just have to connect it to kind of how we thought about the writing process.
There are editing stages, there are proof-reading stages,
there are publishing stages, there's drafting, and there's what people used to
call pre-writing, all of the conceptualizing we would do.
And then you're sitting on your porch in some beautiful place that, and
in some ways you're kind of grinding it out.
You're getting it down and shaping that.
But in the reality of that, that's why we say it's recursive,
all of it's happening all the time.
In fact you may, at some point, throw away your manuscript and
say, I'm actually writing a different book.
[CROSSTALK] >> Once you drop the scheme and
once you've got the essential concept,
then you're not going to be tied down to thinking oh is this allowed.
[CROSSTALK] But I think is this allowed.
>> I think the other thing though, from our perspective because we do work in
a networked way with educators in big geographic spaces.
It wouldn't be the same as for people who are working perhaps on a small island
where everybody can see each other eye to eye.
We do find that having a bit of a shared framework allows us to communicate
across time and space, and
to say here's what we're thinking about in a way that the rest of us can understand.
So that we use the frameworks as a way,
also, of publishing our work to each other and saying, here's what we were thinking,
here's what happened, here's what didn't work, and here's what did work.
So that we can collectively take more informed avenues.
>> Very much framework, people like framework.
[LAUGH] >> Yeah, we like framework.
[LAUGH] >> Well,
I think that- >> New country, new framework.
>> Frameworks provide two things, I think.
One is a sense of coherence, particularly when we're working across schools or
across classrooms, that we can have a similar way of thinking.
And it also provides some confidence that, if we're working from
a base of knowledge and a base of what has worked in other places,
then we can experiment within that base.
So it's a framework, but it's not so rigid that there isn't room for
imagination, intuition, experimentation.
>> I think that's the genius of it that you've got a framework there.
That isn't rigid, it's not prescriptive, but the people can,
once they've grasped it, they can liberate themselves within that framework and
be able to adjust, be able to think differently.
Do you find people coming up with ideas that maybe challenge the framework or
suggest ways of taking it further, customizing it to different contexts?
>> One of the really interesting things that's happening is that we've
got teachers that are working with us at the level of the individual student and
are trying to figure out, how does the inquiry process work at the kid level.
And we're at early days with that but
we're seeing some pretty exciting things happening.
At the other end we're seeing it being used on a whole district level
as the district planning and improvement process.
So we see it from the individual child to a whole system as
having some implications and we're excited to see what happens with that.