Learning = Fishing

At Heartland, we are putting into effect learning teams, which are similar in principle to professional learning communities (PLCs). The teams afford our consultants the opportunity to learn from other consultants in areas that they prioritize, making them better at their profession.

As any administrator that has tried to institute PLCs can attest (or, anything new, for that matter), change isn't embraced by everyone, even when it directly benefits their autonomy. For many, it is an opportunity, but for others, it is a mandate that they don't have time for...

Wait a second. Learning is a mandate. And some educators have a problem with that?

Well, that's not quite fair. In visiting with some of those who had some concerns, it isn't that they have a problem with learning, per se. They just feel they learn quite well with their current routine.

Unfortunately, that's not what the research in adult learning says. And the difference is perhaps best illustrated with a metaphor. Learning is like fishing.

1. You can't learn much if you don't get off the shore. Learning is an active process, requiring effort and initiative. If you wait for the fish to come to you, you might get lucky and have something wash up next to your feet. But it isn't the effective way to do it; get in a boat and go navigate the big lake. If I told you to go learn as much as you could in one day, you wouldn't do what you normally do in a day. You would change your routine.

2. Learning isn't just quantity, but also diversity. Some beginning fishers like to go to the same hole and pull out perch after perch just to say they caught 50 in one day. There is nothing wrong with catching a large haul every once in a while, but you can't do that all the time. As fishers become more sophisticated, they realize that a diversity is important--bass, crappie, and then walleye, and even muskie.

3. Learning is organic, not systematic. I went through all the checklists of "how to fish" with my kids, be it how to bait, how to cast, how to hold the line, etc. It didn't necessarily lead to catching fish, and that is frustrating to seven-year-olds. Many learners go through the same frustrations. I did the steps someone told me to learn algebra, or to grow tomatoes! What they don't realize is learning must be done multiple times in a variety of ways to be internalized, and there is no systematic schedule to it.

4. Diversity of learning requires different locations. Move that boat around. Put the line deeper. Or in other words, check out different sources of information. Use different tools to acquire information. Including ones you haven't tried before.

5. Diversity of learning requires different times. Saying to educators, "the time you will learn is during this once-a-month, two-hour professional development session" is like saying to the fish, "the time I'm catching you will be at 2:00 in the afternoon". That isn't necessarily when you are ready to fish, or when fish are ready to be caught. Adults must have access to learning at all times in an ongoing basis to truly be most effective.

6. Diversity of learning requires casting your widest net. Some during our sessions were slightly upset that they couldn't choose to work with those that they were most comfortable working with for their learning teams. But, the reality is people don't learn as much from those who they are closest to, much like you don't always want the fish that are right next to the boat. People learn more from those farther away.

As an analogy, fishing illustrates what George Siemens describes as connectivist learning, how adults learn best in today's age. We don't learn by prescribed times, locations, sources, people, and methods. We learn instead by a diversity of practices and by creating a wider network with more nodes. Wider networks mean learning can come at any time and not always when one is expecting it.

But to create wider networks, we need to seek out new sources, tools and people. And, that includes people we don't know. Developing our own personal learning networks to fully utilize the tools of today. And embracing online communities to interact any time, pace, and place.

21st Century Skills vs. 21st Century Learning

Am I splitting hairs? Or is there, like I'm postulating, a crucial difference between the two?

If you buy in to my subsequent argument, that there is a difference, then perhaps you'll agree that we might not be focusing on the right area with educational reform in Iowa.

The conception of 21st century skills is that there are skills out there that are essential to having a job in today's marketplace. Be it critical thinking, creativity, or technological ability, you will need these skills to be successful. In this essence, our work on the Iowa Core is hitting the target, since it outlines those very skills.

But, that isn't the same as saying that students actually learn in a different way in the 21st century.

Pose the question this way: Like all trendy models of educational reform, I can identify the skill of "problem solving" as a top one of my Iowa Core-infused curriculum. To reach this objective, I put in a plethora of problems that students need to solve. We put in some complex math problems, scientific questions, document-based questions in social studies, the whole gamut. But while the skill has changed, has the way students are being asked to learn changed? They will still be using a cognitive learning theory approach, as they had before, but with perhaps more rigor involved (and a focus on "problem solving" as opposed to "comprehension").

It is the difference between content and instruction. Or in other words, the "what" students learn versus the "how" they learn it. And, students will struggle to "learn" problem solving much as they have done to learn comprehension.

In this period of time, students learn through the building of connections and the formation of networks. Learning is ongoing, process-oriented. It does not finish with an end product (as in constructivism) an end skill (as in behaviorism) or an end conceptual piece of knowledge (as in cognitivism). The learning is connectivist in nature. It is critical to aid this process through the inclusion of web 2.0 technologies.

Don't get me wrong; a focus on 21st century skills is a good thing! But it misses a substantial part of the issue we are facing. We must put a majority of our reformational energies into moving us to 21st century teaching and learning, not just 21st century content. This discussion with districts and teachers must include how does connectivism look and work in a classroom.

Connectivism - Common Craft style

This is from Wendy Drexler, who working with her son, have put together a synopsis of what a connectivist student's day would look like. Note the similarity to the digital curriculum.

What worries me is that connectivism has not been mentioned with the Iowa Core. The "new way of teaching" pushed by the core, be it authentic intellectual work or project-based learning, is really constructivism. Not a bad thing, mind you (better than the behaviorism model of learning that permeates quite a few of our classrooms). But again, behind the times.

My worries notwithstanding, a nice video:

Connectivism: A Primer

George Siemens is an educational theorist working at the University of Manitoba, who noticed a major gap in the learning theories present. Neither Behaviorism, Cognitivism, nor Constructivism were able to take into account the changing world, especially the technological advances, according to Siemens. Rejecting those theories, he has developed the theory of connectivism.

In brief, the theory of connectivism uses the model of a network, such as a neural network. The individual in the center of the network is surrounded by nodes in the world, nodes such as a skill, an experience, or a concept. The key is for the individual to make connections to these nodes, just like the neural network has axons and dendrites to connect to the next nerve. Learning takes place when either a) more connections are made to new nodes, or b) the connection is reinforced in different, unique ways to become stronger. Siemens argues that the key is not what flows through the pipes of the connections, but rather the pipes themselves, how big they are.

Thus, to enhance learning, the educator needs to introduce an environment rich in stimuli to promote more connections. This would mean exposure to a variety of different ideas, thoughts, people and perspectives. The more connections a person has, the overall health of the network, the stronger it becomes to new challenges (much like the strength of a web being built with more strands of fiber).

But there is more. Controversially, Siemens suggests that learning can exist within the network that we have, that it is an entity that can exist outside of our minds. In essence, there is an element of potential here, just like "potential" energy being a different form than "kinetic" energy. When I'm faced with a new task in my life, my potential learning that exists in a solid support network of my delicious account, my twitter associates, and my email address book is what counts. In this respect, knowledge of the specific content is secondary to the knowledge that exists in strong searching skills or the presence of good connections that will provide me the answer.

It should be noted that Siemens doesn't feel every node is a person... that is just one example. What I personally like about Siemens model is that it is organic; its image of learning is one that grows, that ebbs and flows in different direction. Nodes are introduced into our experience all the time, and our connections are shaded on the basis of circumstances. For someone who learned all the state capitals under forced coercion by their elementary teacher, the connection to the node of "state capitals" is shaded by the connection of the "bad experience". This could hinder the connection and make the learning weaker, or it could strengthen the connection for those that associate with pain strongly.

What's key for me here is that we finally have a theory which can conceptualize forgetting. In behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, once you learn the concept, you really should remember it forever. But in connectivism, it is easy to conceptualize what is happening. The node (we'll say it is the thought "bugs are icky") exists in the network. But over time, many connections are made to other "icky" things (death, cheesy movies, taxes). If there isn't a connection between the "icky-ness" of these new items and the old, suddenly the connection to the old (bugs) becomes overwhelmed by the connections to the new, stronger ones. It is forgotten.

To avoid forgetting, one has to have more connections. In our example, one has to experience that "bugs are icky" in several different ways in order to strengthen the connection. Or, strengthen the connection that "bugs are like death", and "death is icky". For an educator, the key is not to drill the concepts over and over into the student, because while it makes a temporary connection, it will ultimately be replaced if not supported by diverse connections. The key is to provide the diverse connections. Teach that concept in as many different ways possible.

This, for good or for bad, has big implications to our schools. Marzano has advocated for the systematic "guaranteed and viable curriculum", but that isn't a very organic system. The introduction of a lot of nodes, even some of them conflicting, is required to build a strong network. If you stop and ensure mastery after each node is introduced, and introduce one node at a time, you aren't going to get very far. You have to be willing for students to not master all the nodes, that they will assimilate the ones into their network which they can. This is a huge leap of faith for educators, who insist that a student must learn "x, y and z". Indeed, the Iowa Core is somewhere in the middle... it is a pared down set of essentials that Marzano would idealize as the guaranteed and viable, but those essentials are conceptual skills that require a strong set of diverse nodes to support. It isn't just the simple node of learning the state capitals.

Once again, we are back to the point that Alan November made, the point of the digital curriculum, the point where we as educators need to connect our students more to that outside world and let them form their learning being in relationship with those perspectives out there. That is how we can assess our effectiveness.

Madison Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning

As a newbie to this area, I was fortunate to attend this conference… I feel like I received quite a bit of info and networked with the right people. Unfortunately, my computer fried the second day, so I haven’t been able to blog until now.

Here are some initial thoughts:

1. Most impressed with… Rich Jolles’ session on Aligning Professional Development, Mentoring, and Evaluation for Quality Teaching. Here is someone who knows what he is doing. He is coordinating the K-12 elearning at Montgomery County Public Schools in Rockville, Maryland. And, while he didn’t spend too much time boasting about his institution, you can tell things are working well there. The mentoring program that he has in place is very well laid out, including a week-by-week calendar for new online teachers and their mentors to help with the process. We don’t even have that for regular classroom teachers, let alone online teachers.

He also identifies specifically how online teaching, and therefore professional development for online teachers, is different. And, there is quite a difference! The mentoring piece is directly tied to the program/teacher evaluation. In other words, what you learn is what you will be accountable for. I will be mimicing him.

2. Still thinking about… George Siemens’ keynote. Okay, I’m vaguely familiar with the theory of connectivity, and Siemens’ presentation helps crystallize some of what he has written about for me. In general, I can espouse the notion of teacher as curator or concierge to some degree, although I’ve always preferred the notion of teacher as orchestra conductor. It is some of his logical deductions that I am having problem with. Give me some time… I’ll have a full Siemens’ discussion.

3. Is that all we get? Curtis Bonk’s keynote was enticing, but then anticlimactic for me. I’m looking forward to his new book and his concept of “the world is open”, spinning Friedman’s concept for education. But I didn’t get a good look at what this will mean, other than there’s a lot of stuff out there (he’s categorized this openness in 10 categories, each with a bevy of web 2.0 tools that are revolutionary). I’ve got the “internet is full of revolutionary tools” thing down already. I need the way that makes the traditional way unacceptable or impossible. Friedman’s work implies that, since the world is flattening, education will have no choice but to change to meet its needs, probably kicking and screaming. I was looking for Bonk to show how that change will become “mandatory”. For in my mind, I can easily foresee education being the last arena to adopt the new world. I didn’t get that. Perhaps the book will connect the dots (he only had 50 minutes, which is limiting for a tangential speaker like Bonk).

4. The buzz is… Second Life. Everywhere I went, it was Second Life this and Second Life that. Excuse me, SL. I learned some too… I was scratching my head going into this to think of how a simulated environment could be better than a real-world environment. Then a presenter showed me the schizophrenia experiential location in SL. That gave me pause… perhaps there is some use for this. Nuts… I’ve just doomed myself to hours and hours of research and trying to figure out how to build something now.

5. Glad I met… Ed Bowen, who works with Dallas TeleLearning. He was a presenter who took the time to email all participants beforehand, give them his presentation slides, his background info, his delicious account, his blog, and encouragement for everyone else to email there fellow participants. Then he set up a discussion board for post-conference thoughts on what was discussed. Plus, he visited with me a couple of times during the rest of the conference on different topics and what’s going on for us in our lives. If I’m modeling a future presentation, it is after Ed.

6. And Madison… that’s a good place to have a conference.