Learning is Change

38: Surrogates for Success #LifeWideLearning16

Grade level is only useful because it so long has been correlated with a child’s age. Just as it is useful to know if a child is 5 years old rather than 10, it is somewhat useful to think about the type of work and cognitive skill that is possible for a brain with that many years behind it. We vaguely know that there are some challenges that 14 year olds are ready for that 7 year olds are not, but that vague notion has been formalized and codified by years of thinking about where the cutoff points are within our curriculums.

The true issue arises when we start to limit what a child can do based upon those cutoff points. When we say things like, “my second graders could never do that,” we are denying the potential of an individual student to excel. And grade levels are grossly inaccurate when it comes to brain-based milestones anyway. The child who started kindergarten much earlier than other kids will have different experience than one who started much later. The fact that they are being promoted along with their “peers” just means that we are much more interested in preserving the myth of grade levels than truly understanding when a child is ready for the next challenge.

Needing to be “On grade level” is yet another layer that we can add. It represents the notion that the chronological age, the grade level number, and the cognitive/academic challenge all can and should match up. If one of those things is out of sync, a child is not “on grade level”. It may not match up with research on competency or of brain development, but it has so much legacy in our schools that it may be the toughest to change. Children and adults both roughly know what it means to be in 3rd grade. They have a sense of what is required of a 10th grader. Parents can compare notes on their children’s progress and there is an easier transition between schools when a student moves. In fact, grade levels are all about ease of use.

We have 12 grades plus kindergarten (give or take an ECE). We follow those grades with the calendar year (give or take a few credits earned in high school). We have an elementary school, a middle, and a high school (give or take a k-8 or k-12). It is easy to look at and to plan for.

Unfortunately, children are not easy to educate and communities need more than socially promoted kids who lack the skills to be citizens. Being “on grade level” is not a fair marker of a child’s success. It denies the support that child needs to move forward. We don’t worry about kids who are “on grade level.” We only worry about kids who are behind or ahead. “On grade level” has become a code for “spend less time with” as a teacher.

I do not deny that it is useful to have signposts in the growth of students. It is useful to have comparison points, but the grade level and the age of the child are terrible surrogates for actual accomplishments and success in school and life.

37: Get up and walk out. #LifeWideLearning16

The lecture will never die. In one form or another, there will always be someone who wants to stand up in front of others and spout off about what he/she knows. There will always be those who want to sit and listen too. Both because it is easier than active participation and because there are good many things that can be conveyed by telling rather than showing or doing.

It doesn’t mean that it is what we should strive for. It doesn’t mean that lecture is going to get the kinds of lasting outcomes that practice and direct implementation tend to have. But, it does mean that from time to time we will be faced with the reality of sitting in a chair for a longer time than seems comfortable to do so and watching as someone gives a lecture.

This is deeply unpersonalized. The lecturer is not catering to your needs. You do not have agency to learn about and explore more relevant topics. You are not communicating with others and establishing a context for the words that are being said. You are not being reflective about your own practice and making plans for how to apply new learning and change your approach. You are sitting, in a chair, listening.

And if that is true, you are doing it wrong.

Other than judgmental looks from a few colleagues, there is nothing stopping you from personalizing the learning experience. There is nothing to stop you from getting out a device and starting backchannel or taking hyperlinked notes to resources that are being shared. There is nothing to stop you from asking your network for additional research or personal experience to provide greater context for what you are hearing. Indeed, there is nothing stopping you from making each moment more relevant than the last by making plans that incorporate the lecture into your next body of work. Beyond that, there is also nothing keeping you in the chair. As a person, you have agency. There may be consequences for you getting up and leaving, but if a unpersonalized learning experience does not meet your needs and you have developed an idea for what would meet your needs better, get up and walk out. 

The value of unpersonalized learning is to demonstrate your agency. You can use this moment to develop your skill set for personalization. A deeply irrelevant message can be challenged and built into a lasting learning experience. In fact, it may be even more important to do so in times of lecture than in times of collaboration. No one can take your learning away from you, unless you let them.

If the lecture has any value it is how we react to it and make it our own. It is in supporting one another through sessions that feel out of sync with our own goals. It is in the community that builds events and spaces that are reactions to the unpersonalized and the disconnected that the power of the lecture shines through. It is in finding the nuggets of truth within a vast cavern of wordy powerpoint slides.

Personalization isn’t about always having a perfect environment for learning. Instead, it is about always creating that environment from the resources at your fingertips.

36: The Tidy Bow at the End of the Episode. #LifeWideLearning16

I was the Jonathan Taylor Thomas of my family.

The middle child, slightly brainy, who moves down into the basement as soon as he could in order to avoid the older and younger brothers. JTT, as we affectionately called him in those days, was my surrogate for much of the angst I felt for living in such a “normal” family. He was the one that I looked to for much of my formative years, as he was trying to navigate the drama of a family of 5.

Now, my father did not have a tool-related TV show and my parents did not turn to a wise older man who lived next door, but Home Improvement was a really nice mirror to hold up for me. Whether it was trying to figure out if we could ever be as cool at the Tailors or seeing what the “very special episode” might hold, I watched the show religiously and looked for clues as to how I should proceed.

In many ways, I wanted what they had.

I wanted the tidy bow at the end of the episode. I wanted the (mostly) cohesive way that the brothers grew together despite their differences. I wanted the humanistic approach to problem solving that turned to the family and to the community for support rather than religious doctrine.

I know this was a lot to ask of the TV family, but for me it was a second home. For those 30 minutes a week, I felt like there was a family that was just a couple degrees off from ours that I could aspire to. Like, if we just changed a few things, we too would be that happy and wholesome.

Overall, I’m okay that we didn’t end up being the Tailors and that JTT stopped being my fictionalized doppelganger. I’m glad that we moved on from the normal family of a sitcom and embraced the weirdness that was inherent in real people solving real problems and navigating adulthood. But there is a part of me that still lives in the kitchen and connected living room of that house on TV. There is still some small piece of me that wants to part my hair down the middle and sit on the couch with an all-knowing mom and learn a valuable life lesson.

But, now I’m Tim instead of Randy. And I don’t really see the family I am helping to lead as anything like the Tailors. Not just because we have a girl thrown into the mix, but rather because I don’t want that life for my kids. Normal is something that you wrap yourself in because you don’t want to see what else is out there. I want my kids to see beyond normal and embrace who they are rather than try to be JTT.

35: A Person Learns. #LifeWideLearning16

I used to say it is a complex issue and there are a whole bunch of answers that are all correct. I used to say that we are still trying to figure it out and that there needs to be more research into the intricacies of how technology supports learning. I used to say that everyone has their own “personalized” definition and it is important that we shouldn’t pigeonhole it too much because then it will get co-opted by folks who don’t really “get it.”

I used to say those things, but I don’t anymore.

I don’t because personalization means something specific. It is simple and can be easily communicated. It doesn’t require extra research or a series of whitepapers in order to sort it out. Instead, it requires only that we accept it and start to look at how it fundamentally changes the way in which we build and support schools.

Personalized Learning is the learner as agent in their learning.

That’s it. If the learner is the agent of their learning, it will be personalized. It will be according to their needs and built upon their strengths. It will be filled with choice and leverage just the right resources because the learner is the one who is asking for them.

With learner as agent, teachers cannot fill that role because it is already taken. They can facilitate learning and they can create an environment for it to happen, but they can never be the who makes it happen. The agent is the one who asks questions and makes things. The agent is the one who takes responsibility and wonders out loud.

We can model that agency as teachers and leaders. We can build schools that are supportive of students sharing their voice and making good decisions. We can frame the conversations we have about learners and learning so that they are focused upon the actions of a person, a full-fledged human being.

When learners are the agent of their learning:

  • They choose the device on which to both consume and demonstrate their learning
  • They are supported by those who care about them most
  • They build things that they are truly passionate about and they solve problems within their own lives and communities
  • They are often challenged by teachers and other learners to go deeper or to learn about things that aren’t immediately accessible to them.
  • They know what comes next in their learning and they have a plan to achieve it.
  • They know themselves as learners and can leverage their strengths
  • They are continually balancing and reprioritizing their interests and responsibilities, setting themselves up for success inside and outside of school
  • They have access to everything they have ever learned or created
  • They are connected to other learners across their city, their community, and their world
  • They can advocate for their needs for safety, health, and shelter
  • They make choices about the best environments for them to learn within

The list goes on. When learners are agents in their learning, learning doesn’t stop. So, can we please stop acting like we don’t know what personalized learning means?

A Person Learns. People have (or should have) agency. Ergo, Personalized Learning. Stop making it more complicated than that.

34: Five types of collaboration gone bad. #LifeWideLearning16

  1. Groupthink: When you want to please the others in the group more than you want to find the best solution.
  2. Decision by Committee: Finding consensus without ever finding buy-in.
  3. Starting Over, Again: Collaborating on the same thing, but calling it something new because the protocol is different or we didn’t like the outcome the first time.
  4. The Meeting After The Meeting: The type of collaboration that is in direct opposition of the collaboration that has already occurred because no one in the session felt comfortable enough to challenging others during the time allotted.
  5. The Never-ending Collaboration: The document, project, or conversation that never reaches the milestone of sharing out. In this type of collaboration there is a lot of excitement, but ultimately it is unsatisfying and discourages people from participating in future collaborations.

I’m sure there are many more types of Collaboration that goes too far (or not far enough), but these are the ones that I have experienced most. What do you see in your workplace?