Posts
 |
| BTW... This exponential growth curve applies to postsecondary schools too. In less than five years students taking all college courses online may outnumber those taking all courses in classrooms. (fn 18) |
I'm holding out hope that the projections of Disrupting Class
are wrong -- at least in part. Not that schooling as we know it will continue
to thrive. It won't, and it shouldn't. (fn 20) I'm hoping that the disruptive
innovation which will end conventional to schooling is not (as DC
labels it) "student-centered computer-delivered instruction," but is
instead learner-centric learning. That the disruption is not
about instructional software, nor virtual schools and digital content
providers, but about the idea that each learner charts and pursues her own
learning pathways.
Here's how I'd like to see the disruption play out.
Not:
|
Instead:
|
||
Stage
One
|
From teacher-based instruction
To computer-based instruction
|
From teacher-based instruction
To individualized schooling
|
|
Stage Two
|
To student-oriented
computer-delivered instruction
|
To learner-centric learning
|
|
(Projected by Disrupting
Class)
|
(Hoped for by Stevan Kalmon)
|
||
The
labels matter, as I'll try to demonstrate below.
Talk about "personalized learning" or
"individualized learning" is all the rage in education. Indeed, a
year ago a column in Forbes rhetorically wondered whether
personalized learning is just a fad. (fn 21) But for the most part what's being raged about is really just
stage one of the disruptive shift that DC characterizes as
"computer-based instruction" and what I would label
"individualized schooling." It's still monolithic with respect to the
learner; hierarchical authority still mandates what must be learned.
Increasingly, students are offered some crumbs of individualization -- like the
opportunity to take courses online that aren't available in one's physical
school, or the ability to set one's own pace for covering (hopefully mastering)
content -- as with the Kahn Academy or Plato Learning.
This Stage One shift was epitomized by the theme of Educational
Leadership in February 2012: "For Each to Excel." In
the first featured article, edtech gadfly Larry Cuban framed the issue as
one of differentiation.
"Many practitioners (and the public)
highly value standardizing curriculum and instruction for students.... Yet
educators and the public also prize individual excellence -- cream rising to
the top. Differentiating the curriculum for students -- for example, for gifted
students, students in advanced placement courses, English language learners,
and students with special needs -- enables schools to customize learning
opportunities and cultivate individual achievement." (fn 22)
Note the assumption Cuban makes that curriculum is established
for the student -- standardized. The "balanced" approach he
recommends would differentiate the predetermined curriculum. Customization,
yes, but in the way that automakers offer models and options. You don't get to
build your own car.
Some examples of this Stage One -- individualized schooling:
• AP online -- one of
the fastest growing segments of online learning, and a primary example of
disruption cited in DC.
• Flipping the classroom
-- material that the teacher believes students need to absorb is
presented online, so that students can decide when and how to ingest it.
Classtime is available for more individualized and work that applies the
material.
• Blended learning --
various combinations of online and face-to-face schooling environments, the
most common of which offers self-paced online courses to students who sometimes
work on the courses outside of school and sometimes work on them in school
(with adult supervision and support).
• Tracking -- which, of
course, schools don't do any more, except for identified "gifted and
talented" students, or NCLB-inspired "leveled" groupings in
reading, writing, and arithmetic.
• Student information
systems -- through which students, teachers, and parents can track the
students' progress through specific courses as well as the overall learning
program. (Without ironic intent these are frequently called "student management
systems.")
For schooling such programs seem like radical changes. But for
the most part they're merely better ways to do school as we understand it
rather than ways of transforming how school is done. Their disruptive impact,
to borrow the DC language, is that they open the K-12 education market
to more "consumers" -- students, for example, who want more content
than the school's conventional program provides, or students who would
otherwise drop out (or already have dropped out) but can get back in the
schooling loop by recovering credit. They also start to build a new education
market in which the learner more actively engages in the pursuit of knowledge.
Because the curriculum (e.g., the state standards in Colorado or the new and
improved Common Core standards) is hard-wired to the educational experience,
the individual learner still has minimal choice in what she gets to study,
often no choice whatsoever. But she at least has greater capacity for tracking
her own progress and greater control over how and when she'll work through
course and curricular requirements. Often, she gets to create her own project,
or choose among community service options. (fn 23)
The education market is shifting inexorably to this more
individualized approach to schooling. Charter schools, for example. But,
as one commentator recently suggested, "For all the talk about
'personalizing learning' these days, we don't often hear much about the actual
persons in the process. The prevailing definition of 'personalization,'
ironically, seems to have more to do with what technology can offer ...seems to
emphasize data and customization..." (fn 24)
Disrupting Class projects Stage Two as more of this
programmed-but-individualized instruction. Because of the individualization
that technology affords, the instruction will come with even more models and
options for the student.
But Stage Two could be learner-centric learning, in which
the learner replaces the school as the primary agent. Each individual learner
-- as a member of a community of learners and guided by coaching, advising, and
community models -- both designs what she wants/needs to learn
and how she will go about learning it.
Will Richardson says the key strategy we need to pursue is
developing each learner's autonomy. Borrowing from Stephen Downes at the
National Research Council of Canada, he says, "Autonomy is what
distinguishes between personal learning, which we do for ourselves,
and personalized learning, which is done for us." He
asks, "Are we preparing students to learn without us? How can we
shift curriculum and pedagogy to more effectively help students form and answer
their own questions, develop patience with uncertainty and ambiguity,
appreciate and learn from failure, and develop the ability to go deeply into
the subject about which they have a passion to learn?" (fn 25)
Personal choice about what to learn? Personal design of learning
experiences? The chaos! Not necessarily. To work as a system, it would require
dynamic structure and a great deal of mentoring attention to each individual.
But the energy that we now invest in devising and implementing instruction
could be invested instead into nurturing, strengthening, and guiding the innate
human desire to learn. And such a system will do a better job of preparing our
kids for their future than the system we have now.
 |
| Gabriel at the 2006 HS Science Fair Project Title- The Fruit of Paradise: In Vitro Embryo Germination of Musaceae |
 |
| From "Banana Genius Grows 50 Varietals On University Of Hawaii Farm," Huffington Post - 12/5/10 |
I'm not suggesting that every kid -- every person -- has a
powerful passion that will drive a lifetime of intense learning. I'm saying
that humans are designed to learn. Schooling, as it is currently
practiced, is designed to make us unlearners: Students. The disruptive
innovation that might be occurring is that schooling will be replaced by
networked communities of learners -- inspired by passions, fueled by curiosity,
guided by mentors, co-learning with colleagues,... Each learner will, as
monika hardy says it, “experience the exhilaration of learning in a space of
permission to be.” (fn 27)
-------------------
fn 17 - For details on the case developed in Disrupting Class, see my preceding two
posts ("Tipping Point..." parts 1 and 2).
fn 18 - From "Online Education Continues Rapid Growth," in Brain Track (www.braintrack.com/online-colleges/articles/online-education-continues-to-grow - accessed 10/1/12): "According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the number of students enrolled in at least one distance education course increased significantly between 2002 and 2006, from 1.1 million to 12.2 million--and the growth spurt doesn't seem to be slowing down. In fact, the research firm Ambient Institute expects this figure to skyrocket to 22 million within the next five years. By 2014, Ambient predicts that the number of students taking all of their classes online will increase to 3.55 million, while the number of students taking all of their courses in on-campus classrooms will drop to 5.14 million."
fn 19 - Here's a sampling of recent article titles:
fn 19 - Here's a sampling of recent article titles:
• "K-12 Seeks
Custom Fit: Schools Test Individualized Digital Learning" - Theme
for Education Week: Technology Counts, 3/17/11.
• "The rise of K-12
blended learning," a white paper published in January 2012 by the Innosight
Institute - www.innosightinstitute.org/media-room/publications/education-publications/the-rise-of-k-12-blended-learning/.
• "Blended Learning
Mixes It Up," by Katie Ash, in Technology Counts 2012,
3/15/12, pp. 31-34.
• "New charter
school models are combining online-only learning and face-to-face
instruction" - Education Week, 6/15/12
• "Laptops,
personalized learning replace lectures in schools" - eSchool News,
6/21/12
• "Upside Down and
Inside Out: Flip Your Classroom to Improve Student Learning" - Learning
& Leading with Technology, June/July 2012
• "'Hybrid'
Home-Teaching Options Grow in Popularity" - Education Week, 8/8/12
• "When Technology
Tools Trump Teachers" - Education Week, 8/8/12
fn 20 - I don't mean this as an attack on K-12 educators. I believe, as the authors of Disrupting Class demonstrate, that public education has been remarkably effective in accomplishing the many and varied missions it's been assigned during the past 100 years. And it seems abundantly clear to me that teachers do a better job now than they have ever done in this country. And, at the same time, schooling as we conventionally practice it is not adequately helping kids to prepare for their future.
fn 21 - "Is Personalized Learning an Education Fad or
Can It Really Happen in Our Schools?" by Adam Garry (on behalf of
Dell), www.forbes.com/sites/dell/2011/09/26/personalized-learning/
fn 22 - Source: "Standards vs. Customization: Finding the
Balance," by Larry Cuban, in Educational Leadership, February 2012, pp.
10-15.
Here's another example. EdWeek (9-18-12)
promoted a webinar entitled "Hybrid Learning Pushes Personalization
Forward," with the following paragraph: "To truly personalize the learning
process, many educators are blending face-to-face instruction with digital
resources that enhance or reinforce classroom learning. View this webinar and
hear from three educators on the forefront of hybrid learning and discover what
they have learned; including the 5 dimensions of differentiation, the
components of a successful 21st century learning environment, and how to
effectively personalize education and raise student achievement."
fn 23 - Here's an illustration of this minimal enhancement
of learning consumer choice: The 2010 Speak Up survey asked students to
identify the factors that make virtual education appealing. The students' top
ratings went to Scheduling (61% of high school student respondents), Control of
Learning (60% of high school respondents), Work at Own Pace (57%), College
Credit (50%), and Review Class Material (45%). These answers are about time,
place, and a little bit about manner, not at all about what students will
learn. You can't blame the students; they're digging for whatever individuality
they can find. Source: "Leveraging Technology for K-12 Learning," in Education
Week, 3/15/12, p. 36.
fn 24 - "People vs. 'Personalization': Retaining the Human
Element in the High-Tech Era of Education," by Susan Sandler, in Education
Week, 2/29/12, p. 20.
fn 25 - Source: "Preparing Students to Learn Without
Us," by Will Richardson, in Educational Leadership, February
2012, p. 25.
fn
26 - Google Gabriel's name; you'll be amazed.
fn 27 – monika
hardy is a learning innovation facilitator in Thompson Valley School
District (Loveland, CO). The “be you lab” that she and students have created is
described in "Nothing's nailed down
in Thompson School District's Innovation Lab," by Shelley Widhalm, in the Loveland Reporter-Herald. http://www.reporterherald.com/news/education/ci_19173833
No comments:
Post a Comment