Over the past 25 years that I have been involved in education, I have seen so many claims that this or that technology will begin to replace teachers in “X” number of years. Years ago, my initial response to these types of articles was humor and occasional annoyance because I know from first-hand experience that there is much more to learning than just delivery of content. Unfortunately, authors of most of these types of articles are wrongly assuming that learning just involves the delivery of content and then the regurgitation of that content by the student. This commonly held and very naive understanding of how we learn goes back for centuries. If you look at the notion of the Nuremberg Funnel from the 17th century that is depicted in this image/stamp you will see that this idea of pouring information or content into the brains/heads of our students is a very old idea.
The 19th-century commercial artist Jean-Marc Côté created a series of picture cards as inserts that were intended to depict how life in France would look in a century’s time. The education card depicts the notion of pouring information directly into the student’s minds.
While some may see this as an early prediction of the audiobook the notion of pouring information into the learner’s minds is the focus of the image and is at the heart of the problem with these types of depictions/predictions. Before I focus on what I believe is the primary issue I need to acknowledge that there is a very long history of unrealistic claims of how technology would reform education. The following three contemporary authors have documented how schools have failed to effectively use technology to enhance learning. Larry Cuban’s Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920, addresses how the potential of film, radio, TV, and computers has been wasted in the classroom. Todd Oppenheimer’s The Flickering Mind: Saving Education from the False Promise of Technology expands on Cuban’s work and further reveals that the creative power of computers has been squandered due to their use as standardized testing tools. Both these authors acknowledge the potential and power of technology but show how we have failed to leverage that power for learning.
In the timeline History of Teaching Machines Audrey Watters points to the list of teaching machines that have been invented, patented, and promoted as time-saving solutions to the problems of education. We see major figures like Thorndyke, Skinner, and even Neo from the movie Matrix promising a future of instant learning. In her discussion of the dystopian future portrayed in the Matrix Watters questions how we value the process of learning when we so often want to supplant it with something that is, fast, cheap and instant. She argues that this desire for instant learning will continue to resurface time and time again and in the more recent stages of her timeline she points to Kahn Academy and MOOCs as the most recent iterations of the teaching machine.
This brings me back to the heart of the matter. Are we using technology as a tool to help make meaningful connections and to address the challenges of tomorrow or are we just using technology to deliver content and confirm that the student can regurgitate that content? There was a time not so long ago when getting access to information was the greatest challenge. We only have to look back a few years to a time when the Internet didn’t exist and we had to go to the library or other repositories of information to get at the content. I am not that old but I can recall a time in the 1960s when a set of encyclopedias was one of the most important purchases a rural family could make; I grew up searching those books for all kinds of answers. In the last 15-20 years the explosive growth of the Internet and more recently the ease with which we can find information with Google, YouTube, or other search tools and then can share that information on blogs, social media, and in so many other ways has changed the way we need to view our challenges regarding information. The greatest challenge of the industrial age was accessing information and now that we have moved into the digital information age our greatest challenge or problem is assessing information. This means we need to reassess our primary role or job as teachers.
If I imagine my primary job as a teacher is to serve information, am I helping solve the current informational problem or do I make it worse?
And given the vast complexity of the informational network, if I insist on my centrality and authority, does that establish or harm my credibility as a teacher?
If assessing information – and the wisdom & experience that this requires – is the central challenge of the current informational age, then are teachers more or less necessary?
Depending on how you answer this question should determine if your role as a teacher can easily be replaced by a computer or an inspirational robot. If you believe that your primary job is to deliver information to your students then these predictions will come true sooner than you expect. Technology is at the point where the delivery of information and the assessment of the reception of that information through some form of standardized test is already happening and can easily be automated. If you are a teacher that practices content delivery as the primary way to prepare your students for standardized tests then you can easily be replaced by a computer, robot, or other technology.
If you are a teacher who believes it is your responsibility to inspire your learners and to help them assess information and make meaningful connections by creating significant learning environments (CSLE) in which you give your learner choice ownership and voice through authentic (COVA) learning opportunities it will be impossible to replace you with technology. Furthermore, if you hold to the CSLE+COVA approach then you are not afraid of technology and can put technology in its proper place by using it to enhance the learning environment.
Before you breathe that sigh of relief that your teaching job is secure because you believe in the student-centered rhetoric of Dewey and other constructivists you may want to have a look at your practice. Are you talking the talk of Dewey but walking the walk of Thorndyke? Along with the long history of misapplying technology in education, we also have a long history of using the constructivist or progressive rhetoric of Dewey but practicing the behaviorist methods of Thorndyke’s standardized testing (Labaree, 2006).
If you really don’t want to be replaced by an inspirational robot then you need to not only talk the talk of Dewey but walk the walk. Does your practice match your rhetoric? If it doesn’t what are you doing about it?
Labaree, D. F. (2005). Progressivism, schools and schools of education: An American romance. Paedagogica Historica, 41(1–2), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/0030923042000335583
A good test of how well you are doing as an organization it so view the way an others portray your work. Abilene Christian University is recognized as the world leader in mobile learning and as a former part of that organization I know how hard we worked to be able to justify that message. I am now very excited to see that others have portrayed ACU in the same way. I was also fortunate enough to play a role in ACU’s Mobile Learning Initiative and worked closely with all the people in the following videos.
The Texas Education Agency has create a site called POWER ON TEXAS which is intended to be a space for administrators and educators to discover how classrooms across the state are harnessing technology to boost student achievement and teacher effectiveness. Their primary goal is to help administrators and educators to tap into resources, connect with ideas, and find practical tools to get started on their district’s journey to join the digital learning revolution.
The following series of videos highlight the innovative educator preparation program at ACU, where the latest in mobile technology is being combined with 21st Century approaches to education with noteworthy outcomes.
ACUs Mobile Learning Initiative Model of Innovation
A Model for 21st Century Educator Preparation
Learning to Integrate Technology in the “mess” of a Real Classroom
Researching the Benefits of Project Based Learning with the Integration of iPads
Incorporating Media into Curriculum for 21st Century Learners
Even though constructivist learning theorists for many decades promoted the benefits of self-directed learning or autodidactism it wasn’t until the COVID crisis of 2020 and the mass forced remote learning that most educators had realized that too many students were not suited or prepared to learn online. Why? Justin Reich (2020) points to research in his book, A Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can’t Transform Education, which shows that the learners who are most successful in an online or blended environment that requires self-pacing and personal motivation are those who are already successful in school. These self-directed, self-motivated, and academically prepared learners will succeed in any learning environment because they know how to learn and assess the quality of their own work. The problem that we face is that the vast majority of students are dependent on their teachers to direct their learning and to administer standardized testing. If autodidactic learners are able to learn in any type of environment then we should be asking how do we help our learners become autodidacts and adopt a learner’s mindset. I have explored this notion further in the post, We Need More Autodidacts and the related Learner’s Mindset Discussion.
Our research in the Digital Learning and Leading (DLL) program at Lamar University, our experience in the School of Instructor Education at Vancouver Community college over the past several years, and several decades of related research and experience in a wide variety of learning environments have confirmed that if you create a significant learning environment where you give your learners choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities (CSLE+COVA) you can incorporate assessment FOR/AS learning which can help shift a learner toward a learner’s mindset. We have also learned through our experience and research that incorporating feedforward or educative formative assessment will also help to continue that shift toward the learner’s mindset. By giving learners choice over most aspects of their learning experience and through the use of authentic learning opportunities and ePortfolios, our students over the past several years have incorporated many aspects of the assessment as learning perspective which are essential to the learner’s mindset.
Unfortunately, all too often there is a very different learning environment that our students experience in the courses and programs I have developed and instructed than the type of the learning environment that my students are able to create for their learners in their organizations. Finding the right balance between assessment of learning, assessment for learning, and assessment as learning is one more factor that plays a significant role in the learning environment. In much the same way that we have explored and differentiated the role of choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities we have to do the same for assessment OF/FOR/AS learning.
Rather than add to the decades of literature on assessment OF/FOR/AS learning I will draw upon the key ideas and summarize the salient points that are most important to contributing to a significant learning environment.
For those who prefer a more typical written definition the New South Wales (Australia) Education Standards Authority (2017) provide a good summary of “assessment for, as, and of learning”
Assessment of learning assists teachers in using evidence of student learning to assess achievement against outcomes and standards. Sometimes referred to as ‘summative assessment’, it usually occurs at defined key points during a teaching work or at the end of a unit, term or semester, and may be used to rank or grade students. The effectiveness of assessment of learning for grading or ranking purposes depends on the validity, reliability, and weighting placed on any one task. Its effectiveness as an opportunity for learning depends on the nature and quality of the feedback.
Assessment for learning involves teachers using evidence about students’ knowledge, understanding, and skills to inform their teaching. Sometimes referred to as ‘formative assessment’, it usually occurs throughout the teaching and learning process to clarify student learning and understanding.
Assessment as learning occurs when students are their own assessors. Students monitor their own learning, ask questions and use a range of strategies to decide what they know and can do, and how to use assessment for new learning.
The following assessment OF/FOR/AS learning table is a compilation of from a wide variety of resources that goes a bit further than simple definitions (Chappuis et al., 2012; Fenwick & Parsons, 2009; McNamee & Chen, 2005; Rowe, 2012; Schraw, 2001; Sparks, 1999):
Assessment
Of Learning
For Learning
As Learning
Type
Summative
Formative
Formative
What
Teachers determine the progress or application of knowledge or skills against a standard.
Teachers and peers check progress and learning to help learners to determine how to improve.
Learner takes responsibility for their own learning and asks questions about their learning and the learning process and explores how to improve.
Who
Teacher
Teacher & Peers
Learner & Peers
How
Formal assessments used to collect evidence of student progress and may be used for achievement grading on grades.
Involves formal and informal assessment activities as part of learning and to inform the planning of future learning.
Learners use formal and informal feedback and self-assessment to help understand the next steps in learning.
When
Periodic report
Ongoing feedback
Continual reflection
Why
Ranking and reporting
Improve learning
Deeper learning and learning how to learn
Emphasis
Scoring, grades, and competition
Feedback, support, and collaboration
Collaboration, reflection, and self-evaluation
If we want to encourage our learners to become more autodidactic it would then seem reasonable to shift from assessment of learning to assessment for learning and ultimately get to assessment as learning. We see this perspective from Lorna Earl (2012) in her highly cited text Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximise Student Learning.
Earl’s assessment pyramids are featured in many different sources and her argument that the traditional assessment of learning is the dominant form of assessment is widely accepted. Even though she calls for a balance in the use of assessment of/for/as learning her revised assessment pyramid that replaces assessment of learning with assessment as learning as the base of the pyramid still doesn’t represent a realistic balance nor an effective way to incorporate assessment into the learning environment.
Rather than view assessment of/for/as learning as hierarchical it may be more effective to view assessment of/for/as learning more holistically as more of an interplay of assessment within the learning environment. The National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education in Ireland (2017) offers a wonderful perspective on assessment of/for/as learning that emphasizes the interplay of the different types of assessment and the key roles that the assessment and the people involved play.
While some learning theorists may desire to craft a potential learning environment that uses assessment as learning, the reality we face, and that our learners face is not theoretical. We live in a world where we use credentialing exams and other forms of standardized testing and while we have seen a recent move toward implementing formative feedback most educators’ reality reveals that assessment of learning dominates. Moving toward assessment for learning and assessment as learning will only be possible if we look at the bigger picture. We need to help educators to recognize that we are not asking for a full pendulum swing away from assessment of learning to assessment as learning with assessment for learning somewhere in the middle. We are acknowledging that an interplay of all three is not only realistic it will be the most productive approach to improving the learning environment.
We must also acknowledge that our teaching and learning environment are dramatically influenced by the assessments we use. If we consider assessment of/for/as learning as an integral part of the learning environment and we look to fully integrate assessment as part of the learning process then we do our learners justice by helping them to experience a balance in the assessment of/for/as learning. If we model an integrated approach to assessment of/for/as learning then we will be equipping our learners so that they too can integrate assessment of/for/as learning into their own learning environments that they create for their learners.
While this more focused examination of assessment of/for/as learning may provide a novel perspective for some, we have been incorporating the assessment of/for/as learning inter-relationship in the creation of our significant learning environments and when we give learners choice, ownership and voice through authentic learning. This assessment as learning perspective is a practical way to move into what the researcher Mizerow would argue is transformational learning. Mizerow (2000 & 2010) argues that you do not learn things until you tell someone about what you have learned. The transformation to deeper learning happens in the reflective process and the sharing of your learning process with others.
The entire shift toward the learner’s mindset includes the shift toward assessment as learning and you and the following posts and video are a few examples of how we have been supporting and exploring how to help learners become self-directed or autodidactic.
Contribution to Your Learning and the Learning Community
The assessment as learning model is realized in the ADL program and courses through the Contribution to Your Learning and the Learning Community collaboration and reflection component of each course.
In addition to viewing the Assessment As Learning Video posted at the top of the page, ADL students are required to also view the following video and then consider their contribution to their learning and their learning community.
Contribution to Your Learning and the Learning Community
“At some point, to be powerful performers in life as well as self-directed learners, students must learn how to assess the quality of their own work” Creating Significant Learning Experiences by Fink, L. D. (2013, p. 103).
This critical reflection allows you to evaluate your ability to be a self-directed learner by getting you to self-assess your contributions to your own learning and to the learning of your classmates. Learning to self-assess is an important part of your being a self-directed and lifelong learner.
You will be self-assessing your contributions to your learning and to the learning community at the end of each course.
Directions: (Expectations)
For each course, you are to select a numerical score from the self-assessment marking guide and then write a rationale (min 500-800** words) that supports and justifies the numerical score you have selected. This rationale will address what is working, what you can do better, and will highlight your contributions to your learning and to the learning of the community. Please provide specific details in your rationale. The rationale must also list the 3-5 members of your base group community with whom you consistently collaborate. The rationale must list a numerical score, include links to your work, and be submitted as a link to a post on your ePortfolio.
**Accelerated ADL option: For those who are currently taking two ADL courses at the same time, you can combine the two separate course Contributions to Your Learning Community reflections into one unified reflection on the condition that you reflect on and articulate how your collaborations impact the connecting of ideas from the two courses. This is much more than just stating that you did combine the two reflections; you need to explain how you combined your collaborations and what was the impact of doing so.
Note: If your rationale lacks specific details and does not support your score (too high or too low) you may be asked to redo the rationale before the score is adjusted and is recorded.
Self-Assessment Marking Guide
Score 90-100
Key Contributions
Contributed to and helped build your core collaboration group.
Provided peer feedback to your core group members.
Revised all assignments and reflected on revisions in this contribution to learning activity.
Completed ALL of the course readings, videos and supporting resources.
Met the various course activity deadlines indicated in the calendar.
Supporting Contributions
Took leadership responsibility in your base group and the course.
Contributed to your learning and the learning of your colleagues by participating in ALL activities.
Active contributions in the various course forums.
You posted in a timely fashion so others can respond to your posting.
Your postings reflect breadth and depth of thinking with research to support your thinking and is cited using APA.
Additional postings were made that did not require research but were rather to contribute to the learning.
Score 80 – 89.5
All of the key contributions were met.
One of the supporting contributions was not met.
Score 70-79.5
One of the key contributions was not met or and one or more of the supporting contributions was not met.
Score 0 – 69.5
More than one of the key contributions were not met and more than one of the supporting contributions was not met.
This guide is provided in each of the ADL courses.
Alberta Education. (2003). Types of classroom Assessment http://www.learnalberta.ca/content/mewa/html/assessment/types.html
Assessment OF/FOR/AS Learning. (2017, March). [National Forum]. The National Forum for the enhancement of teaching and learning in higher education. https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/our-priorities/student-success/assessment-of-for-as-learning/
Chappuis, J., Stiggins, R. J., Chappuis, S., & Arter, J. (2012). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right-using it well. Pearson Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Earl, L. M. (2012). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Corwin Press.
Earl, L. M., & Manitoba School Programs Division. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind: Assessment for learning, assessment as learning, assessment of learning. Manitoba
Education, Citizenship and Youth. https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/assess/wncp/index.html
Fenwick, T. J., & Parsons, J. (2009). The art of evaluation: A resource for educators and trainers. Thompson Educational Publishing.
McNamee, G. D., & Chen, J.-Q. (2005). Dissolving the Line between assessment and teaching. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 72–76.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco, CA.
National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. (2017, March 30). Expanding our Understanding of Assessment and Feedback in Irish Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/publication/expanding-our-understanding-of-assessment-and-feedback-in-irish-higher-education/.
NSW Education Standards Authority. (n.d.). Assessment For, As and of Learning. Retrieved December 7, 2020, from https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/understanding-the-curriculum/assessment/approaches
Rowe, J. (2012). Assessment as learning—ETEC 510. http://etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/Assessment_as_Learning
Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 3–16). Springer.
Sparks, D. (1999). Assessment without victims: An interview with Rick Stiggins. Journal of Staff Development, 20, 54–56.
If there is one significant lesson that educators can learn from the COVID pandemic it is that shifting to virtual teaching or remote teaching without a plan or preparation was hard at best and more chaotic for students, teachers, and families than anyone could have predicted.
With the dispersion of vaccines, we are now hearing about a potential resumption of school this coming fall of 2021. But, once schools return to traditional face-to-face attendance, will they revert to pre-COVID norms? Perhaps this past year of reactive remote learning will help school leaders to recognize that we need to be proactive and leverage technology to reshape their schools and transform student learning outcomes in the process.
The question we need to address is how do we go from hard pivot to seamless integration? The following are links to articles, blog posts, YouTube videos, TED Talks, and books that were used or referenced in my session for the School Leadership Progress & Innovation Series at Governors State University.
Links to Authentic Learning & CSLE+COVA posts:
I have been advocating authentic learning or project-based learning and creating significant learning environments for decades both professionally and personally. Talking the talk as an academic takes on a much more significant perspective when you walk the walk in your personal life.
The CLSE+COVA section of this site is also a great starting place to see how to create a significant learning environment by giving your learners choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities.
What is the learner’s mindset? Where does it come from or how is it developed? What is its relationship with the growth mindset and the innovator’s mindset? Can it be quenched and if so how do you get it back? What support is there for these ideas?
Operational Definitions
Mindset – The view and/or state of being you adopt for yourself that profoundly affects the way you lead your life (Dweck, 2006).
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.
How is this different from the Growth and Innovator’s Mindset?
Growth Mindset – Dweck (2006, 2015a, 2016b, 2016c) posits that with a fixed mindset students believe their basic abilities, intelligence, their talents, are just fixed traits. Since these students believe they have a fixed amount of talent and intelligence they strive to look smart all the time and will even embrace ignorance to avoid looking dumb. In contrast, Dweck posits that with a growth mindset students understand that their talents and abilities can be developed through effort, good instruction, and persistence. You learn to adopt a growth mindset by learning to listen to your fixed mindset voice that says, “I can’t” and you simply add the term “yet”.
Innovator’s Mindset – Couros’ (2015) innovator’s mindset builds on the growth mindset in that he argues that abilities, intelligence, and talents are developed leading to the creation of new and better ideas. He posits that we must create a culture where teachers are reflective, observant, empathetic, problem finders, and risk-takers who embody the innovator’s mindset as they model creativity and resilience.
We suggest that the growth mindset and the innovator’s mindset are simply part of the learner’s mindset. These aforementioned mindsets provide beneficial pathways to restoring or reinvigorating aspects of the learner’s mindset that have been quenched.
The learner’s mindset also addresses some of the most significant limitations and criticism of the growth mindset. Research has shown that simply adopting a new way of thinking, belief, attitude, or mindset without addressing other factors like changing the learning environments has no impact on improving learning or achievement (Sisk., Burgoyne, Sun, Butler, & Macnamara, 2018). Dweck (2016b, 2016c) has also acknowledged that just espousing the growth mindset or promoting students’ potential without enabling them to realize that potential through some form of systemic change results in an empty promise or a false growth mindset. When the improvement doesn’t happen, those espousing the false growth mindset will blame that holder of the mindset. These sorts of empty promises along with just praising effort and simply promoting a positive attitude are key reasons why the growth mindset alone will not bring about improvement.
Since the innovator’s mindset is an extension or built upon the growth mindset it faces some of the same challenges due to its emphasis on a change in belief or attitude. While Couros does stress the attitude shift toward empathy, creativity, and resilience he moves beyond the growth mindset in the sense that he advocates that teachers become problem finders and risk-takers. This emphasis on action or behavior is a good start toward the change of behavior that is required to bring about effects change.
The learner’s mindset addresses the limitations of the growth mindset and innovator’s mindset by acknowledging the change in thinking about learning must be accompanied by a change in the approach to learning how to learn that is embedded in the creation of a significant learning environment in which learners are given choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities. When you factor in the need for this change in mindset, change in approach to learning, and the change in the learning environment needs to happen cumulatively and in close proximity, the learner’s mindset offers a more robust way to prepare learners for life.
The Synthesis of the Learner’s Mindset
The Learner’s Mindset is a synthesis of some of the best ideas from constructivist thought leaders like John Dewey (1916, 1938), Jerome Bruner (1960, 1966), Jean Piaget (1964), Seymour Papert (1993), David Jonassen (1994), John Carroll (1990), and many more. Back in the early 1990s, I began exploring how to walk that constructivist walk and started to research how to build the most effective constructivist learning environment. I knew how important the learning environment was but also realized that it was only one part of a bigger puzzle. In the mid-1990’s I started to explore how one’s thinking about learning and how different approaches to learning would factor into the learning environment in my doctoral research. By the time I had published my research on a web-based approach to instruction called, Inquisitivism: The HHHMMM??? What does this button do to approach web-based instruction (Harapnuik, 2004), I had confirmed that restoring the natural or intrinsic capacity we all have for learning was one more key piece to the learning puzzle.
From the early 2000s to 2014 I had worked on, or contributed to, the development of hundreds of constructivist courses and dozens of programs in a wide variety of educational settings. I had also been engaged in using technology to enhance learning and contributed to the development of many online, blended, and mobile learning initiatives at several institutions. While I believe all the work I had done in a variety of capacities at numerous organizations had been important, I knew we were not addressing the bigger picture and were missing the opportunity to maximize the learning. When I look back at these experiences, I see in some we overemphasized the platform or learning management system (LMS); in some, we focused too much on the technology or the device; in others, we focused too much on the professional development, and in others, we ignored the implicit power of the culture.
When I began co-developing the Digital Learning and Leading (DLL) Masters at Lamar University in 2014, I promised myself that this initiative was going to be different and needed to address all the key components that research revealed needed to be in a true constructivist learning environment. My co-developers and I agreed to create a significant learning environment (CSLE) in which we gave our learners choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities. While we were building the DLL program we also began to formalize the terminology of the COVA learning approach which we now refer to CSLE+COVA. We have confirmed through our research that in order for COVA to work you need all four components to function within a purposefully designed significant learning environment (Harapnuik, Thibodeaux, & Cummings, 2017; Thibodeaux, Harapnuik, & Cummings, 2017). With the CSLE+COVA approach to learning and the creation of a significant learning environment we had factored in two key pieces of the learning puzzle, but we still needed to address how to help our students change their thinking about learning. This part of the puzzle had always been there but we just didn’t see it. It wasn’t until we stepped back far enough and changed our focus like one would do with a stereographic image, that we recognized the learner’s mindset that my colleague and I lived and embraced was the missing piece our students also needed to embrace.
The notion of the learner’s mindset has always been part of my thinking about learning. Back in the 90’s when I was researching and confirming the importance of the inquisitive nature and arguing that we had to restore this natural or intrinsic capacity as a way to help adult learners overcome their fear of technology I had colloquially referred to Inquisitivism as a way of restoring the learner’s mindset. When I was exploring early childhood learning and the Project Approach as a way to help prepare my boys for life I knew I had to help them embrace a learner’s mindset so that they could turn life’s challenges into opportunities for growth and development. When my colleague and I were looking for a way to help our graduate students in the DLL program get over their fixation on grades, their difficulty in accepting constructive criticism, and their fear of failure or not knowing the right answer we looked for a way to help them restore their learner’s mindset and turned to Carol Dweck’s growth mindset. By having our students explore and develop a growth mindset plan in one of their first courses we found that they became much more receptive to feedforward and started to see challenges as opportunities for growth. The growth mindset is a wonderful way to start overcoming the fixed mindset thinking that is, unfortunately, a systemic problem in our system of education. It is also a useful starting point in helping students move toward the learner’s mindset.
Learner’s mindset thinking has not only been part of my thinking about learning it is often something that my colleague and I take for granted. Her website subtitle is “Learner’s Mindset”. My website title is “It’s About the Learning”. If you are in the learner’s mindset then everything is about the 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 adopting this state of being requires that one change their thinking about learning, their approach to helping themselves and their learners learn how to learn, and by changing the learning environment.
Presupposition – Learner’s Mindset is Intrinsic
Before we go on to further explore the impact of the learner’s mindset and how it can be preserved or reinvigorated if it has been quenched, we need to establish the presupposition that the learner’s mindset is a natural or intrinsic capacity that we all have and that children manifest in their early years. The prolific educational researcher Jean Piaget who is one of the foremost authorities on development and learning argues that the capacity for learning is intrinsic and needs to be nurtured:
One need only watch an infant for a short period of time to know that they are curious, interested in the world around them, and eager to learn. It is quite evident, too, that these are characteristics of older children as well. If left to themselves the normal child does not remain immobile; they are eager to learn. Consequently, it is quite safe to permit the child to structure their own learning. The danger arises precisely when the schools attempt to perform the task for them. To understand this point consider the absurd situations that would result if traditional schools were entrusted with teaching the infant what they spontaneously learn during the first few years. The schools would develop organized curricula, in secondary curricular reactions; they would develop lesson plans for object permanence; they would construct audio-visual aids on causality; they would reinforce “correct” speech, and they would set “goals” for the child to reach each week. One can speculate as to the outcome of such a program for early training. What the student needs then is not formal teaching, but an opportunity to learn. They need to be given a rich environment, containing many things potentially of interest. They need a teacher who is sensitive to their needs, who can judge what materials will challenge them at a given point in time, who can help when they need help, and who has faith in their capacity to learn (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969 p. 224-225).
It is important to acknowledge that Piaget viewed his research as empirical support for Dewey’s theory of learning and also as a continuation of the research that Dewey has started decades earlier. Seymour Papert, who was a modern-day educational reformer comparable to Piaget and Dewey, also argued that the system of education squelched children’s natural ability to explore, experiment, evaluate, create, and learn. In an interview with Dan Schwartz in 1999 Papert stated:
Children, of course, come into the world as very powerful, highly competent learners, and the learning they do in the first few years of life is actually awesome. A child exploring the immediate world does that pretty thoroughly in an experiential, self-directed way. But when you see something in your immediate world that really represents something very far away — a picture of an elephant, for example — you wonder how elephants eat. You can’t answer that by direct exploration. So you have to gradually shift over from experiential learning to verbal learning — from independent learning to dependence on other people, culminating in school, where you’re totally dependent, and somebody is deciding what you learn.
So that shift is an unfortunate reflection of the technological level that society has been at up to now. And I see the major role of technology in the learning of young children as making that shift less abrupt because it is a very traumatic shift. It’s not a good way of preserving the kid’s natural strengths as a learner.
Rather than reactively pursuing to restore what has been taken away, we recommend that we proactively maintain the learner’s mindset in which our children are born. We should strive to reinforce the natural passion to explore, to discover, to ask questions, and to learn which are part of the learner’s mindset. Unfortunately, as we have seen from Dweck’s (2006) research there is a tendency to quench our children’s inquisitive nature through the promotion and use of fixed mindset thinking and other systemically limiting factors. As a result, the growth and innovator’s mindsets that are a part of the learner’s mindset need to be restored or reinvigorated.
Reinvigorating the Learner’s Mindset
Moving to or adopting a learner’s mindset requires that one change their thinking about learning, their approach to helping themselves and their learners learn how to learn, and by changing the learning environment. One of the most significant challenges to adopting and living the learner’s mindset is that these changes in behavior need to happen cumulatively and in close proximity but not necessarily at the same time.
If you want to reinvigorate or adopt the Learner’s Mindset please sign up for the COVA eBook as a starting point. This will also get your name on our mailing list. We also have a Free or Open Educational Resource (OER) course called Revitalise Your Learner’s Mindset which we have made available through Learnersmindset.com.
References
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg funnel: designing minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT press
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. Harper & Row.
Couros, G. (2015). The innovator’s mindset: Empower learning, unleash talent, and lead a culture of creativity. Dave Burgess Consulting Inc.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Penguin Random House.
Dweck, C. (2015a, September 23). Carol Dweck revisits the “growth mindset.” Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/09/23/carol-dweck-revisits-the-growth-mindset.html
Dweck, C. (2016b, January 11). Recognizing and overcoming false growth mindset. Edutopia. http://www.edutopia.org/blog/recognizing-overcoming-false-growth-mindset-carol-dweck
Dweck, C. (2016c, January 13). What having a “growth mindset” actually Means. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/01/what-having-a-growth-mindset-actually-means
Fuller, R. B. (2010). Education automation: Comprehensive learning for emergent humanity. Estate of R. Buckminster Fuller.
Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1969). Piaget’s theology of intellectual development: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harapnuik, D. (2004). Development and evaluation of inquisitivism as a foundational approach for web-based instruction (Doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Harapnuik, D. K., Thibodeaux, T. N., & Cummings, C. D. (2017). Using the COVA learning approach to create active and significant learning environments. In Keengwe, J. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on digital content, mobile learning, and technology integration models in teacher education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34–37.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic books.
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R.E. Ripple & V.N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget Rediscovered: A Report on the Conference of Cognitive Studies and Curriculum Development (pp. 7–20). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Sreechinth, C. (2017). Extracted wisdom of Alan Watts: 450+ lessons from a Theologist. UB Tech. https://books.google.ca/books?id=xruxDwAAQBAJ
Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses.
Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K, & Cummings, C. D. (2017). Graduate student perceptions of the impact of the COVA learning approach on authentic projects and ePortfolios. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., & Cummings, C. D. (2017, May). Learners as critical thinkers for the workplace of the future: Introducing the COVA learning approach. Texas Computer Education Association TCEA Techedge, 2(2), 13. Retrieved from http://www.tcea.org/about/publications/
Psychological Science, 29(4), 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704
Schwartz, D. (1999). Ghost In the machine: Seymour Papert on how computers fundamentally change the way kids learn [ZineZone.com]. http://www.papert.org/articles/GhostInTheMachine.html
