Are Schools Built for Real Learning?

The Problem

In the  Ted Talk  "The Surprising Truth About Learning in Schools", Will Richardson identifies at least 14 conditions for powerful learning based on surveying thousands of school teachers. They include

1. Safe environment
2. Personal investment
3. Real world application
4. Fun
5. Release to their lives
6. Social
7. Interesting questions
8. Positive environment
9. Real audience
10. Passion
11. Teachers/mentors
12. Autonomy and agency
13. Challenging
14. Not time constrained

I would guess that you would agree with most of these items. Richardson also offers a list of what people never identify as ideal conditions.

1. Sitting in rows
2. 40/60/88 minute blocks
3. One sized curriculum
4. One subject area focus
5. Age grouped co-learners
6. No real world application
7. Teacher controlled
8. Someone else's questions
9. Standardized assessments
10. Emphasis on grades
11. Carrots and sticks
12. No choice/no agency
13. Lack of relevance
14. "Handing it in"

Paradoxically, the second list, as you might recognize, is exactly what a typical school classroom looks like now (and has looked like for many years). Other educational theorists have proposed similar ideas to Richardson's proposed ideal conditions including Michael Fullan (Stratosphere), Alan November (Who Owns the Learning) and Marc Prensky (Teaching Digital Natives)

Richardson goes on to claim that schools are not built for learning. That is a provocative statement. After all, many students graduate from our current school systems and appear to do reasonably well in the real world. And yet, deep down, most people would probably prefer the first list of characteristics - the ones we experience outside of school when we are learning something on our own.

The Problem

If we accept that current school systems are not ideally set up for learning, how do we change conditions for learning? School systems have proven to be remarkably resistant to change (Fullan, 2013; Perkins, 2014). If we take a look at the second list above, most teachers are unlikely to be able to change time class blocks, the prescribed curriculum, single subject area focus, age grouping, standardized assessments, and the practice of handing in work to be evaluated. Most school boards are not amenable to large structural changes. However, other items on the second list can be modified to create more optimal learning environments.

Possible Solutions

Curriculum Changes

Teachers are required to "cover" the curriculum, but creative teachers who understand the big picture can focus on problem-based learning and open-ended problems that address multiple and integrated aspects of a set curriculum. For example, students in a mathematics class could be asked to build a model of a city, to scale, addressing topics such as ratio, measurement, number sense, fractions, units and proportion.

Real-World Applications and Establishing Relevance

In a seminal book,  How People Learn, Bransford et al. (2000) noted the importance of previously learned information on understanding new concepts. One main recommendation was to connect new learning to previously learned material. An additional recommendation is to have students identify personally relevant experiences that might be connected to new concepts being taught. There are numerous sites that help to identify real-world applications for a wide range of subject areas (e.g., Math, Physics, STEM)

Student Control Over Learning

Marc Prensky (2010) proposed a general approach to learning with technology called partnering. With partnering, students have considerable control over their learning and focus on finding and following their passions, selecting appropriate technology, researching and finding information, sharing thoughts with their peers, and creating multimedia artifacts demonstrating their proficiency.

Student-Generated Questions

McTighe & Wiggins (2013) advocate the power of essential questions in teaching. However, student questions can be just as powerful and intrinsically motivating. Starting a new topic can be launched with student-generated questions. This process encourages natural curiosity and, more often than not, will lead to many of the concepts that need to be "covered" in a prescribed curriculum.

Emphasize Growth Mindset

In 2007, Carol Dweck proposed the idea of a Growth Mindset - where intelligence is not fixed or biologically determined but rather controlled by hard work and determination. By focussing on clear learning goals, providing appropriate guidance and scaffolding, emphasizing mastery over grades, and developing a safe environment where making mistakes is considered a part of the natural learning process, a growth mindset can be instilled in students.

Offering Choice

A number of educational pundits advocate more student choice in learning and assessment (Fullan, 2013; November, 2012; Prensky, 2010; Richardson, 2015). While it is unlikely that most schools will allow students to learn what they want (even if that is a reasonable suggestion), allowing students choice in assessment and how they demonstrate their knowledge can be intrinsically motivating. Weimer (2011) adds that giving students choice in assessment helps develop student responsibility for learning.

Authentic Tasks

Handing in assignments and projects to be evaluated for grades is standard fare in public school, but technology has made it possible for students to produce authentic artifacts such as blog articles, web pages, social media publications, and eBooks that can provide value to peers and the community. Mueller (2018) argues that authentic assessment encourages students to perform meaningful tasks that replicate real-world challenges thereby increasing motivation and confidence.

References

Bransford et al. How People Learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Fullan, F. (2013). Stratosphere. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson.

November, A. (2012). Who owns the learning?. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

McTighe & Wiggins (2013). Essential Questions. Alexandra, VA: ASCD.

Mueller, J. (2018). What is Authentic Assessment?

Perkins, D. (2014). Futurewise. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Richardson, W. (2015).  From master teacher to master learner. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Weimer, M. (2011). A Role for Student Choice in Assessment?