There is no such thing as virtual learning

Our shared vision for learning revolves around students accessing different learning opportunities through different pathways.  Learning opportunities (or learning experiences) no longer exist solely in a classroom where a teacher exercises all control.  Learning opportunities exists in four “buckets”: seminars, projects, community learning opportunities and internships/mentorships. 

Seminars: Seminars are a collection of learning objects that focus instruction on a specific topic.  For example, a Biology teacher may create a seminar on the ecology of a trout stream.  Seminars are not synonymous with courses or classes.  We believe that courses are often a barrier to realizing the ideal learning experience because of the rigidity they create within the system.  Seminars offer students, teachers and the system more flexibility in creating customized learning paths for learners as they create more options for learning.

Projects: Projects are a learning opportunity where a learner creates something.  Projects are a hands on creation of something unique.

Community learning opportunities: Community learning opportunities embed the student in their community and access learning resources available in their community.  In my hometown of Elkland, PA there is a small historical society.  A student may participate in a learning event (or series of events) through the historical society.  By creating a mechanism by which a student can demonstrate what they have learned from the experience, a learning ecosystem exponentially increases learning opportunities for students.  A student may also lobby for a certain outcome in local government and the learning that occurs through that experience can also be demonstrated.  These are just two examples and there are many more possibilities.

Internships/mentorships: The opportunity and expertise that exists in our business community is a natural partnership.  As I am writing this, my friend that I have known since kindergarten is building a bathroom for us.  The learning a student can experience from working with him is invaluable.  Almost all subject areas are touched upon. 

We are working to create templates that schools and teachers can use to help create learning experiences in each of these different buckets.  All learning opportunities can be tagged to anchors and standards so different students will learn and demonstrate competency in each standard in different ways.  We can also back map the learning opportunities and their associated standards to traditional “courses” if that is necessary for your organization.

 If the student is truly to be at the center of the learning ecosystem, structures must be in place that allow for an easy transition to new learning opportunities.  As I look out my living room window I see five or six dead ash trees swaying in the wind.  My thoughts turn to how will I cut these down to make the yard a safe place for my kids to play.  I do not say to myself “I will use a chainsaw to cut these down” or “I will use a high lift and ax to cut these down”.  I simply think of the end I want to achieve first, and then I will determine the best way to accomplish that end.  The same holds true for learning.  Learning can happen face to face, blended or virtual.  We do not need to start the conversation with a classification of the method in which learning will occur.  It is just learning.  All learning opportunities in each bucket result in learning.  The method may be face to face, blended or virtual but the fact remains that learning is the outcome.  So let’s not get stuck on the method in which learning will occur, let’s just worry about the learning experience!

Experience and Education Chapter 8: Lessons for MCL

Mass Customized Learning is a direct descendant of the theory of learning espoused by Dewey in Experience and Education.   MCL is a lens through which one can view the learning environment.  At the center of the MCL learning ecosystem is the learning experience.  All of us learn within the context of our current life experiences rooted on our society and communities.  Meaningful learning occurs when the learning experience encompasses the reality of the student.  When the learning experience is truly at the center of our learning system unnecessary aspects of what we currently do in education will become less important.  For example, building a "master schedule" in any school is an adult oriented  activity.  You have to "fit" the students into the needs of the teacher schedules.  When the learning experience is at the center of the ecosystem, scheduling does not create barriers for learners, rather, it offers opportunities to design learning experiences for kids that are meaningful.

I recently read a book where the author challenged his readers to "look at what they do for the first time".  What would someone that has no knowledge of your profession say about your assumptions, actions and systems if they simply saw it for the first time?  I think about this a lot.  You can make your own list of assumptions that you take for granted in our education world and I will share with you my educational assumptions.

• We assume that important learning only occurs in a school building. 
• Architecturally, schools and prisons are synonymous. 
• Physical, intellectual and emotional control are goals of our current system.  
• Learning is a linear process that can be measured.  Grading tells us all we need to know about students...and the list can go on. Dewey encourages educators to grapple with big questions like "what is education?".  It is difficult for educators to "look at education" for the first time but only when we do will we start to change our assumptions and practice.

The work of creating a system where the learning experience is at the center of the ecosystem is extremely difficult.  The process of systemic change will be hard for parents, students and educators. The important work of change requires courage.  Courage to look at what we currently do in our education system and how we allow students to not be engaged.  Courage to challenge long held assumptions of the role of a student, teacher, administrator and physical school building.  Timidity at this juncture is not acceptable.  If we are timid, someone will be reading about our philosophy of education 75 years from now and will wonder why nothing changed.

Changing the metaphor for Learning

The following (long) quote comes from the end of Jim Harrison's novella The Ancient Minstrel. Although Harrison is discussing writers and the writer's process, I want you to substitute "educators" for "writers"  as a thought exercise.

"Feeling bright-eyed, confident and arrogant doesn't do the job...You are far better being lost in your work and writing over your head.  You don't know where you are as a point of view unless you go beyond yourself.  It has been said that there is an intense similarity in people's biographies.  It's our dreams and visions that separate us.  You don't want to be writing unless you're giving your life to it. .."

When I start thinking about learning and our educational structures I start to feel a bit off kilter.  As a general principle, I often feel that way when I start to reflect on a lot of topics.  For instance when studying "new" agricultural practices, I am (re) learning that a farmer should do things to their soil that encourage the soil to naturally aerate itself.  This is done simply by planting cover crops and tilling the land...things that my grandfather learned from his father 80 years ago.  Why this practice is now considered "cutting edge" and "new" pushes me off kilter.  In education we are learning that "personalization" of the education process should be our goal.  Quick question...when did personalization not become the goal of education?  Personalization is similar to the old agricultural practices coming back into vogue...why did we get away from them in the first place?

Recently I watched a Ted talk about how we need to think of education in a different metaphor.  Currently the metaphor used to explain the education system is that of a factory.  Raw material (students) are pushed through an assembly line (grading structures) and tinkered with by line workers (teachers) who are overseen by plant managers (principals).  In a previous post I discussed changing from education structures to learning structures.  What is the corresponding change in metaphor for that structural change?

As I grapple with discovering a better metaphor, I am enlightened by Jim Harrison's advice about writing.  All of us who believe in the integrity of learning and believe that we can make a difference in this world must get "lost in our work".  Adults must stretch "beyond ourselves" in order to help students do the same.  When this happens, we will discover the new metaphor for learning.  I welcome your thoughts.

The Barrier of Curriculum

Chapter 7

Progressive Organization of Subject Matter

“The educator by the very nature of his work is obliged to see his present work in terms of what it accomplishes, or fails to accomplish, for a future whose objects are linked with those of the present” (p. 76)

How is the this for a question for starting an essay: What is the purpose of education in America?  This simple question is seldom asked and easily glossed over with platitudes (education is for “democracy”; education is to help a student get a job, etc..).  Does it change your reaction to the question when we slightly alter the question to: What is the purpose of learning in America?  The former question implies a view of our society based on old, educational structures, while the latter question implies new learning structures.  The old learning structures have as its focus content.  The new learning structures have as its focus the learning experience.  The old structure obsesses with curriculum (what must be taught when), while the new learning structure obsesses over the learner and the learning experience.  Old structures require educators (and school systems) to constantly refer to the past for their guidance and sustenance.  New learning structures use the past only to help understand the present and leverage that understanding to create learning experiences which will help learners understand the future.  Learning experiences, centered on the learner, is not anchored in the past.  Rather learning facilitators use an understanding of the past to inform the present which help them craft learning experiences that will help the learner create a framework for the future.

The content of our current (old structure) school system centers on what is taught---the curriculum.  The significance of curriculum in preventing a change from the education structures to learning structures cannot be understated.  Curriculum impacts evaluation of students, teachers, principals, superintendents, schools and school districts.  It determines where (room number, time of day) a student (and teacher) will spend their time in school.  Curriculum drives and entire industry (textbooks).  Curriculum prevents the learner, and the learning experience, from being at the center of our school system.  I have been in districts where every elementary grade-level teacher across the district must be on the same page of the textbook on the same day.  This is called “implementing the curriculum with fidelity” kids be damned!  This illusion of sound education practice lulls educators into not reflecting how the student becomes a bit player in the proper implementation of content.

This is not to say the content is not important…of course it is.  My argument is that content has become THE most important facet in current education structures.  School systems are laser focused on content because the livelihood of the adults are at stake if the students do not prove that they have “learned” the content.  This is an understandable reaction to our current education structure. The challenge for reflective educators is to bring better balance between content and the learner.  Once an equilibrium is created, we can start the discussion about how to transition from education structures to learning structures.  Deemphasizing curriculum and reemphasizing the learner and the learning experience is not easy.  In many ways our society has become blind to other options in learning for our students…we simply cannot think of another way.  However, if we truly want to answer the question, (what is the purpose of learning in America?), then we will grapple with content, structures and learning experiences.

Duff's Reflection on Chapter 7 of Experience and Education

Dewey Chapter 7: Progressive Organization of Subject Matter

Duff

            In an ideal world everything works ideally.  We do not live in an ideal world.  Our education system is less than ideal for many yet it serves millions of children. Is less than ideal for our children good enough?

            Dewey is convinced that in an ideal learning system the facts and truths would align with the experiences.  Educators would be afforded the trust and freedom to custom design learning that s child centric. Is this utopia built by Dewey possible?

            Nine young men build a hovercraft from scratch.  The project, the experience they tackle fits with their knowledge their skill base.  They had the latent skill to achieve.  But somewhere within their background they had acquired the requisite skills. How does this need for skill for foundation background fit with Dewey?  Where does the learner learn the necessary independence, the technology acumen to Google it, the math, the aerodynamics and on and on?  Experiences can be built of that there is certainty but what about the skills or are they a part of the opportunity, the curriculum?

            Indeed where do these boys learn risk; the option of failure in a system that does not and never has embraced failure.  It is evident that we do not learn that we do not create without failing.  In our traditional education system the fear of failure is endemic. Should struggle and failure be a part of the curriculum?  How does that align with macro testing designed to achieve 100% success when 100% of anything on-going is a statistical impossibility.  How does this all get resolved. Dewey is silent in this realm.

            But we digress so back to our nine year old boys.  The hovercraft was a great learning experience. They were successful.  Unfortunately once the project was done, it was done.  No next experience was planned to build upon the momentum of the first.  What would the next experience be, how would the two link? 

            No linkage, no next opportunity existed.  The boys returned to a fact based learning environment.  So, how can we customize move toward experience based learning in our rudimentary test based culture? We must wonder is it even possible?

            The answer is yes, but it is self evident that we must transform our thinking, we must trust and that is difficult.   The simple question with a complex answer is how?

            In 1984 a semi young graduate student met his advisor at the University of Pennsylvania.  It was his great fortune to be assigned to one of the great minds in education, Allan Glatthorn.  At the time Dr. Glatthorn was considered a sage in the world of curriculum.  To suggest he was unique, that he thought different is an understatement.

            Dewy espouses the progressive organization of subject matter.  Glatthorn emphasized progressive simplicity.  He was a curriculum minimalist teaching who taught that subject matter was nestled in a clearly defined set of core objectives, in Dewey’s end outcome.  Glatthorn characterized the end outcome, the diploma as a guarantee. His question was simple, “What should a child be guaranteed for the time he or she spent with you?” 

            Once these guarantees or end outcomes are defined the courses, the grade level curriculum build up, outcome-to-outcome, experience-to-experience.  Simply put K outcomes, goals, core objectives feed to 1, to to 2 and so on.  Mush of this exists in our highly aligned curriculums today.  So, why do we not listen to Dewey or Glatthorn?  Can their ideas work?

            In 1995 a School District leadership decided to minimalize the curriculum.  They followed Glatthorn’s advice and simplified everything to a set of end objectives.  The organization of subject matter became a simple set of guaranteed outcomes at each level.  These leaders took a risk moving toward the progressive when the world was transitioning to strict traditionalism 

            The leadership made a decision to let the teachers teach.  They afforded the teachers the freedom to create the experiences necessary to reach the objective in their classes, departments or grade levels. Accountability was made clear; the teachers’ performance would be based upon the success of their children achieving the outcome.  The resulting data would then be peer compared and adjustments made.

            This simplification worked.  Every metric in the district over time improved.  Children achieved well beyond the economic and background expectation of the community.

            This decision was not without risk.  The organization experienced   a lot of failing forward.  But, the decision to trust the teachers, to afford them the freedom to design relevant experiences worked. As trust grew thinking changed and transformation began.

            Dewey is right true learning comes from experiences built upon experiences.  There is logic to it.  The experiences can be a simple as a great open-ended question or as complex as a hovercraft.

            An endeavor of this magnitude requires a shift in leader attitude.  This change described was a practice of patience.  It requires re-design of time blended with courage and communication and an unwavering belief in what you are doing.

            In my experience with a multitude of teachers like Tiffany and Autumn I have found they rarely if ever fail the children.  When told what is expected and given the freedom to teach they can and will go to amazing lengths to help a child succeed.  That is their gift and we should give them every opportunity to use it

            After all is this not what learning is about - helping a child succeed?