We have been talking about starting a video channel or podcast to talk about all ways that we can enhance learning…and now we have finally done it. Welcome to our introduction video and watch for our first post in the Learner’s Mindset Discussions. You can also subscribe to our CSLE2COVA youtube channel where we will be posting the Learner’s Mindset Discussions and all other video related to creating significant learning environments (CSLE) by giving learners choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities (CSLE).
When my boys were quite young I started to encourage them to continually and perpetually look for a better way to do anything and everything. I used to joke around with them saying: “your dad is the laziest guy they will ever meet because I am always looking for a better or easier way to do things so that I can finish up the stuff I don’t like doing and get onto the stuff like do like doing like riding our bikes, or playing games or just hanging out”. I also gave my boys permission to stop me when we were working on anything to offer a suggestion on how they thought we could do the task in a better or easier way.
Over the years there have been countless times that my boys have offered suggestions or walked me through their ideas on doing some task that ended up in a me saying, “Yes, your right this is a better way, thanks let’s do it your way”. Many years of working with my boys have also helped me to realize that the better way isn’t aways the easier or faster way. We also learned that there are times the easier way may initially seem faster, but if you weren’t able to do things well enough and had to do something over again the better way could actually be the easier and faster way.
My boys aren’t really boys anymore; they are young men. The other day we were exploring how to design a braking and cornering drill that they could use in their Down Hill mountain bike training. They both want to move up the professional ranks in their sport and realize that they need to go faster which means that they have to learn to brake less or at the optimum moment and to corner better, so setting up drills that they can practice on a daily basis is really important. They use a variety of tools like GoPro cameras and Freelap timing equipment for feedback on their training so they are always discussing the best way to use the technology to enhance the learning or training environment.
My younger son Caleb is a stickler for doing things better so he was suggesting that he and his brother need to use two Freelap timing stations. One timing station at the beginning of the turn where you would start braking and one a few metres past the exit of the turn so that you can use a timing split to accurately gauge the improvement of braking at different times and places. Using a split would also control the differences in how fast one peddled up to the brake point and would give you are more accurate representation of the difference in breaking would make on your exit speed on the turn. You have to understand that the professional level of their sport the difference between 1st, 2nd or 3rd place in a race can be the difference of a few hundreds of second so gaining a half seconds on a few turns on a race course can make the difference between being on the podium or finishing out of the top 10.
His older brother Levi suggested that using one timing station would be good enough to give you an idea of where to brake and how much of a difference it would make so we all had a good discussion exploring if the level of accuracy the two timing stations and the timing split would be necessary. We came to the conclusion that it probably would be better to have the accuracy the two timing stations and the split would offer but we were not sure it would it be necessary. Since we have access to the equipment my boys are going to test it out.
If you don’t know, give it a go — is the approach my boys have always followed even before Ken Robinson referred to this idea in his Schools Kill Creativity TED Talk. I have always been careful to nurture and help them maintain that natural or intrinsic inquisitiveness all young children have and that they seem to lose within a few years entering into our formal education system. I have also looked for ways to help all learners, I am responsible for, regain or stimulate that natural inquisitiveness that is so important for learning.
It is exciting to think that the desire for, or the pursuit of, the better way may of had it roots in those early years when I encouraged my boys to maintain their natural inquisitiveness and to always look for a better way to do anything and everything. This attitude, or perhaps mindset, will enable them to improve their training and help them with their racing careers. I also think it will help them in many other aspects of life. By constantly looking for the better way they will constantly be asking question and looking for options that will help them solve life’s challenges. Hopefully they will never be satisfied with doing things the way they have always been done but will continually look for a better way.
The pursuit of the better way is what I like to refer to as the learner’s mindset and is something that I believe is central to our human nature. It is more foundational than Carol Dweck’s growth mindset in which people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point. Dweck argues that the growth mindset will stimulate a love of learning and foster a resilience necessary for great accomplishment and can simply be adopted by adding the notion of “not yet” to a negative belief about one’s ability or talent. The learner’s mindset is even more foundational to George Couros’ innovator’s mindset considering his assertion that the innovator’s mindset takes the growth mindset a step further by focusing on using one’s ability to learn and to create or the belief that our abilities, intelligence, and talents are developed so that they lead to the creation of new and better ideas.
The growth mindset is crucial to opening one up to learning and the innovators mindset is crucial to motivating one to create new and better ideas, but both require that natural or intrinsic inquisitiveness that we see in infants, toddlers and young children who haven’t yet had this spark of curiosity and creativity quenched by our educational systems. I am not alone in this assertion – that schools kill the natural desire to learn or as Ken Robinson states Schools Kill Creativity. We also see a similar fundamental belief that children are pre-adapted to learning and have a natural curiosity from learning theorists like Jerome Bruner. Carol Dweck’s lament of her elementary school teacher labeling her and starting her down the spiral of the fixed mindset is not an isolated story and it doesn’t take much for each of us to think back to a time when we were labeled or categorized and put into a position of believing that we just didn’t have what it takes.
Perhaps if we focused on nurturing and supporting this natural inquisitiveness and predisposition toward learning we would be much further ahead and wouldn’t then have to attempt to restore or rebuild what we have torn down in the first place. Fortunately, the human being is the most amazing and resilient learning entity on our planet so even if our schools do kill creativity and standards based assessment systems quench the natural natural or intrinsic inquisitiveness of the learners mindset it only takes a little bit of choice, ownership, and voice given through an authentic learning opportunities to kindle that spark of the learners mindset.
This is why Dweck’s notion of “yet” is so powerful. Not yet sparks our intrinsic inquisitiveness, flames the fires of our intrinsic desire to learn and stokes our learners mindset.
References
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Couros, G. (2015). The Innovator’s Mindset: Empower Learning, Unleash Talent, and Lead a Culture of Creativity. San Diego, CA: Dave Burgess Consulting Inc.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House Publishing Group.
Robinson, K. (2016). Ken Robinson: Do Schools Kill Creativity? Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?utm_source=tedcomshare&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=tedspread
Carol Dweck, Professor of Psychology at Stanford University, the author of Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Random House, 2006) and the article Even Geniuses Work Hard posits that if students with a Fixed Mindset believe that intelligence is an inborn trait and is essentially fixed they:
Tend to view looking smart above all else;
May sacrifice important opportunities to learn—even those that are important to their future academic success—if those opportunities require them to risk performing poorly or admitting deficiencies;
Believe that if you have ability, everything should come naturally;
Tell us that when they have to work hard, they feel dumb;
Believe that setbacks call their intelligence into question, they become discouraged or defensive when they don’t succeed right away;
May quickly withdraw their effort, blame others, lie about their scores, or consider cheating.
In contrast Dweck explains that students with a Growth Mindset believe that they can develop their intelligence over time and subsequently will:
View challenging work as an opportunity to learn and grow;
Meet difficult problems, ones they could not solve yet, with great relish;
Say things like “I love a challenge,” “Mistakes are our friends,” and “I was hoping this would be informative!”
Value effort; they realize that even geniuses have to work hard to develop their abilities and make their contributions;
More likely to respond to initial obstacles by remaining involved, trying new strategies, and using all the resources at their disposal for learning.
To help motivate students to adopt the growth mindset Dweck recommends that teachers create a culture of risk taking and strive to design challenging and meaningful tasks. This will require teachers to learn to encourage and reward effort, persistence and improvement rather than simply reward results and test scores. It will also mean that instructors will need to educate student on the different mindsets. Dweck offers many key recommendations in the article that include:
Emphasizing Challenge, Not “Success”
Giving a Sense of Purpose;
Grading for Growth.
To help teachers learn more about a growth mindset Dweck and her colleagues have developed growth mindset curriculum that can be accessed at www.brainology.us.
Learner’s Mindset – a state of being where people act on their intrinsic capacity to learn and respond to their inquisitive nature that leads to viewing all interactions with the world as learning opportunities. This state enables one to interact with and influence the learning environment as a perpetual learner who has the capacity to use change and challenges as opportunities for growth.
When you are in the learner’s mindset everything is about learning. Being in the learner’s mindset can be likened to Csíkszentmihályi’s (1990) state of flow which is where a person is performing some activity fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus. This notion of not being aware of something that is basic to everything is not a new notion according to the philosopher Alan Watts:
As the fish doesn’t know water, people are ignorant of space. Consciousness is concerned only with changing and varying details; it ignores constants-especially constant backgrounds. Thus only very exceptional people are aware of what is basic to everything (Sreechinth, 2017, p. 56).
This is why we argue that the learner’s mindset is a state of being where people act on their intrinsic capacity to learn and respond to their inquisitive nature which leads to viewing all interactions with the world as learning opportunities. When you are in the learner’s mindset you are like a fish in water. You don’t think about it because it is basic to everything that you do. Moving into or using this state of being requires that you change your thinking about learning, your approach to helping yourself and your learners learn how to learn, and by changing the learning environment.
Change your thinking about learning – By adopting a Learner’s Mindset you will see that learning is much more than the transfer of information, knowledge, skills, or process through instruction, self-exploration, or experience. This information transfer model just uses the lower order thinking which includes remembering, understanding, and applying while the Learner’s Mindset definition of learning is the making of meaningful connections which includes analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing the information you have taken to create something new or to solve a real-world problem.
Change your approach to learning – By embracing your Learner’s Mindset and asking the key questions of why, where, and how will this new information, skill, or process be used in the real world to solve a real problem.
Change your learning environment – By seeking out the actual real-world scenarios where the information, skills, and process will be used and applying the constraints of the real world to your learning you will leverage the authentic learning opportunities and create meaningful connections that will lead to growth and development.
How and why this works
Change your thinking about learning
The Learner’s Mindset approach to learning requires that you use all levels or orders of thinking. Even if you are only going to be asked to regurgitate information on a test or apply a process or skill knowing where and why this information, process, or skill will be important and in what real-world context this will be used will help you to encode the information for future retrieval.
Educational psychologists, learning theorists, instructional designers, educators, and many more learning professionals refer to Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning which looks at learning from three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor.
Cognitive = Head/Knowing
Affective = Heart/Feeling
Psychomotor = Hands/Using the Sense
Bloom intended the taxonomy to be holistic and assumed that all three domains would be included when we develop learning environments. Unfortunately, this often isn’t the case in our educational systems and most other sectors of our society. Unfortunately, our systems of education have focused primarily on the Cognitive domain and all too often just on the lower levels of thinking that include remembering, understanding and applying.
Even though Bloom’s taxonomy was updated in the early 2000s the changes have only shifted in the higher order thinking putting creation at the top of the list. You will often see the levels labeled as remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating to denote the action by shifting from the noun to the verb form.
We prefer to go further and use the inverted Bloom’s taxonomy because it combines the higher-order thinking into a continuum and reveals that analyzing, evaluating, and creating must be conducted in conjunction which we often refer to as the synthesis level.
The synthesis perspective is extremely important because it not only requires that you take information apart and explore relationships (analyzing), critically examine the information and make judgments (evaluating), and then use the information to create something new (creating). All these higher-order levels still work with the information that would be acquired in the lower levels of thinking. In order to work at the synthesis level, you still need to find and remember information (remembering), understand or make sense of the information (understanding) and apply that information in a new but similar situation (applying). These lower levels of thinking are still very important because they are used to provide the information that will be analyzed, evaluated, and then synthesized when something new is created.
Depending on the context in which you’re in you will need to emphasize some of the levels more so than others. It is important to remember that knowing how you fully learn to make meaningful connections will help you even if you are just being asked to regurgitate information on an exam.
Change Your Approach to Learning
To change your approach to learning you need to ask why or where will this information be used. This is a much different question than asking “Why do we need to do this” next to “Will this be on the test”. These are among some of the most annoying questions instructors dread.
If your instructor has created a significant learning environment where they have given you choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities (CSLE+COVA) then you will have the context and should be able to discern where this new information, skill, or process will be used. If your instructor is more focused on the information or acquisition model of instruction then they more than likely will not have created this type of learning environment and you may need to ask them the question about why, where, and even how this information, skill or process will be used in the real world. As we have pointed up earlier learning is really a process of making meaningful connections. If your instructor is focused on just the information, skill, or process then you will need to ask the key questions that will help you to make the connections you need to effectively learn. We often refer to this as a sift from collecting the dots to connecting the dots.
The conceptual framework referred to in this video is essential to the meaning-making process. This is especially important if you are brand new to the information or have very little experience or knowledge of an area. A good instructor will scaffold you into their level of understanding by helping you to see the conceptual framework in the way that they do. As you gain more knowledge and experience with the new ideas or concepts your conceptual framework will grow and you will make meaningful connections that will help you to retain the key information that you need to be successful.
If you have an instructor who is focused on covering the content in the text or in the assigned curriculum resources and isn’t willing or able to guide you to where and how this new information, skill, or process will be used in the real world then you will need to look for additional support from your classmates, from industry or from Google. We live in the most amazing time to be a learner. Virtually all the world’s information is accessible in the palms of our hands. Within a few minutes, you can do a Google search on almost any topic and get enough information to help you create the context and see the bigger picture.
Change in the Learning Environment
Learning doesn’t just happen in the classroom, library, or study space it actually happens all the time and everywhere if we are involved in using a real-world context. While we have been arguing this for several decades you may run into an instructor who does not hold this same position and view the classroom, lab, shop, or virtual meeting spaces as the location of learning. Obviously, you need to respect your instructor but we strongly encourage you to ask your instructor where this information, skill, or process can be used in the real world. We also encourage you to consider that a learning environment includes social and cultural factors.
If you are fortunate enough to have an instructor who creates a significant learning environment where they give the learner choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities (the CSLE+COVA framework) or other aspects of constructivist learning theory then you will be immersed in a learning environment and also encouraged to expand your learning environment to include the real world scenario or project.
If you are not fortunate to have this type of instruction then you will have to consider the “where will this be used” question on your own. Relying on Google, friends, family, and classmates to help you to see where this new information, skill, or process will be used will be as important as it is in the Learning Approach section. Please keep in mind that if you are in high school or post-secondary education you should have some sense of what you may be planning to do after your studies so if you use this end as a focus for your learning journey and view your schooling is a means to an end. If you have a very specific focus like being a nurse, doctor, engineer, or trades-person then you have goals in mind and should be exploring your potential career environment to see how to apply everything you are learning.
We must warn you that this will be one of the harder parts of this process, especially if you have an instructor who is solely focused on delivering the content they are assigned to distribute. When COVID hit many instructors had to shift to remote learning where the primary form of interaction was Zoom or some other online collaboration tool, and this move was not made easily. Many instructors only know the information transfer or acquisition model of learning and they see content delivery as their primary responsibility. They give you the content in some form and you give it back to them in a form of a test, paper, or summative assignment; this is how the educational system works. Any shift away from the classroom is a difficult shift for these people because they are only focused on delivering content.
As a student you are not able to change these instructors so when you ask where and how this information, skill, or process will be used, please do so as politely and professionally as possible. You may find that many of your classmates will appreciate your questions and given a bit of time your questions should warm your instructor to the point where they start to look beyond just delivering you the content and focus on helping you to prepare for your future endeavors.
References
Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. Harper & Row.
Harapnuik, D. (2021, February). Learner’s mindset explained. [Website]. Retrieved from https://www.harapnuik.org/?p=8705
Harapnuik, D. (2021, June). Reignite your learner’s mindset. [Website]. Retrieved from https://www.harapnuik.org/?page_id=9069
Sreechinth, C. (2017). Extracted wisdom of Alan Watts: 450+ lessons from a Theologist. UB Tech. https://books.google.ca/books?id=xruxDwAAQBAJ
If you run a Google Scholar search on the phrase “active learning” you will find many peer-reviewed articles, literature reviews, and reports from a variety of Centers for Teaching and Learning that will define active learning, point to its’ theoretical foundation and offer a list of examples of how it can be implemented.
Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching assistant director Cynthia Brame (2016) offers one of the better information sites/reports on active learning – https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/active-learning/. Brame includes a section that deals with the question of whether or not there is evidence that active learning works. The question of whether or not active learning works is extremely important so most academic Centers for Teaching and Learning will point to research that confirms that active learning is beneficial. They often qualify these assertions of effectiveness by indicating that while research confirming active learning efficacy is conducted in a specific discipline or context, the bulk of the evidence suggests that active learning approaches are effective across disciplines (Ambrose et al, 2010; Bonwell and Eison, 1991; Chickering and Gamson, 1987).
For example, Joel Michael’s (2006) article, Where’s the evidence that active learning works? explores the effectiveness of active learning in the sciences by examining how it was used in a variety of contexts. Michael (2006) points to the following key active learning factors that need to be incorporated:
Learning involves the active construction of meaning by the learner.
Learning facts (“what”–declarative knowledge) and learning to do something (“how”–procedural knowledge) are two different processes.
Some things that are learned are specific to the domain or context (subject matter or course) in which they were learned, whereas other things are more readily transferred to other domains.
Individuals are likely to learn more when they learn with others than when they learn alone.
Meaningful learning is facilitated by articulating explanations, whether to one’s self, peers, or teachers.
Perhaps one of the most important considerations Michael (2006) asserts is:
Active learning and student-centered pedagogical approaches put the focus on the learner and what the learner does. However, active learning doesn’t just happen; it occurs in the classroom when the teacher creates a learning environment that makes it more likely to occur.
There are other examples of active learning research in the Sciences that confirm the efficacy of active learning and confirm the challenges of implementing active learning effectively (Prince, 2004 & Freeman et al., 2014). But there are also examples of research that suggest that active learning cannot be applied as a treatment and there was no association between student learning gains and the use of active-learning instruction (Andrews et al., 2011). The following summary (Andrews et al., 2011) suggests why active learning may not be effective:
Although active learning has the potential to substantially improve student learning, this research suggests that active learning, as used by typical college biology instructors, is not associated with greater learning gains. We contend that most instructors lack the rich and nuanced understanding of teaching and learning that science education researchers have developed. Therefore, active learning as designed and implemented by typical college biology instructors may superficially resemble active learning used by education researchers, but lacks the constructivist elements necessary for improving learning.
The research suggests that while centers for teaching and learning promote active learning and many instructors may attempt to include active learning by adding a class discussion or small group discussion within a project context you can’t apply active learning by applying a treatment or process without considering the bigger constructivist elements that are required. To make active learning work you need to consider how you and your learner think about learning, whether your learning approach is active and learner-centered and what type of learning environment have you created. These three key factors (changing thinking about learning, changing the learning approach, and creating a significant environment) are at the core of the Learner’s Mindset and can be realized by creating a significant learning environment (CSLE) where you give your learners a choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities (COVA) which is what we refer to as the CSLE+COVA framework.
Both the Learner’s Mindset and the CSLE+COVA are more contemporary implementations of the constructivist theories and approaches that are well supported by research. The authentic learning opportunities that are part of COVA are one of the more effective ways to facilitate active learning. Older learning theorists like Piaget often referred to active learning as part of the concrete activities and social dynamics that made up an effective learning environment. See my post Piaget’s Key Implications for Learning for a more detailed explanation.
While educators who wish to help their learners learn how to learn and believe that incorporating active learning is a step in the right direction, there often is a push back from many learners who are familiar and comfortable with the current information transfer system and test-based standards. The post Why do so many prefer passive learning? reviews current research that reveals that even though active learning may yield better achievement most students prefer the traditional lecture-based model.
I do not offer these examples of pushback or challenges to active learning to discourage educators. I do so in order to remind educators that even though most constructivists advocate a student-centered approach this doesn’t mean that the learner always knows what they need. All too often our learners have figured out how our current information transfer system works so any deviation from what they. know or are comfortable with will be met with resistance.
References
Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061
Bonwell, C. C., and Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASH#-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
Brame, C. J. (2016). Active learning [Center for Teaching]. Vanderbilt University. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/active-learning/
Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin March 1987, 3-7
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
(Random House, 2006) and the article 
