It's About Learning

Archives For deeper learning

To Own Your Learning You MUST Use Higher-Order or Deeper Thinking (Part 1)

Dwayne Harapnuik — December 5, 2021 — 3 Comments

One of the advantages of posting your ideas to your own journal, blog, or ePortfolio on an ongoing and long-term basis is that you can go back and evaluate and analyze your thinking and then continue to refine and synthesize your ideas. As new data or information comes to light or your research confirms or contradicts your hypothesis you can update your synthesis. The following is a synthesis from the post How to Change the World One Learner at a Time from January 2021 which is an update to a 2015 post Changing the world, one learner at a time as well as many other ideas that I have posted over the years. The higher-order thinking that I referred to in the Owning Your Learning Process video above is also a key function of the Learner’s Mindset which is achieved by a change in thinking about learning, a change in the approach to learning, and a change in the learning environment.

The change in thinking that I refer to requires a move away from lower-order thinking that dominates our society and results in the desire for a quick fix to all our challenges. I often refer to this quick-fix thinking in education because I spend most of my time in this discipline. For example, the educational technology (Edtech) literature for the past several decades is filled with examples of how the application of technology in a learning setting makes no significant difference and has little impact on learning outcomes and that the focus needs to be the learning, not the technology if we want to make a difference (Reich, 2020; Cuban, 2001; Russel, 1999; Wenglinsky, 1998). The research is clear. Edtech is not a quick fix or silver bullet (Thibodeaux, Harapnuik, Cummings, & Wooten, 2017) and the naive notion that one can implement it better than the last group that failed is continually repeated in all levels of classrooms across the nation (Harapnuik, 2021). This is why worksheets and fill-in-the-blank questions even when they are digitized in things like the SAMR model or other quick fixes do not result in deeper learning (Harapnuik, 2017).

When I originally explored why this reliance on lower-order thinking continually persists I naively assumed that we could simply move up to higher thinking to high-order thinking because it incorporates the lower levels and it also has the potential to offer so much more. Unfortunately, the move to higher-order thinking involves more than just the desire to operate at that level. Besides being much easier than higher-order or deeper thinking, lower-order thinking offers a sense of security because it is what our educational system has prepared most people to do. Standardized testing and the competency-based system of education that uses this form of summative assessment exist primarily in the realm of applying, understanding, and remembering which fall into the lower-order thinking in Bloom’s Taxonomy.

While we do have pockets of outcome-based instruction where students are given choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities or project-based learning, for the most part, our system relies on information transfer and competency-based instruction which resides in the realm of lower-ordered thinking which can be easily measured. The philosopher, Steven Hicks (2021) argues that our current education system is one that teaches compliance, and rather than learning that life is about solving problems our students are instructed that authorities have all the answers. We use the rhetoric of Dewey and say we want children to grow to be self-reliant, creative problem-solving adults but we have the reality of Thorndike that promotes the information transfer standardized model of education that can be easily measured and allows us to sort our students into the fixed norms of the industrial age (Labaee, 2005). I have listed several obstacles to higher-order thinking but I think the biggest challenge is that most people don’t really understand the difference between the two levels. Furthermore, many don’t realize that learners are seldom asked to move beyond showing they can remember information, can understand how information is used, and how that information is applied in a different yet similar situation.

Bloom’s Taxonomy
According to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy when people are attempting to carry out a procedure or implement a process or apply an existing model to a new but similar situation they are using lower-ordering thinking in their hopes of applying existing information to their situation (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The category of Applying is at the top of the lower-order thinking within Bloom’s taxonomy but it is still considered lower-order thinking and only facilitates information transfer because there is no analysis, evaluation, or creation which are at the higher order and are essential to deeper learning. Drawing a diagram, making a chart, applying an existing process, and solving a formula are all lower-level skills that do not require higher-order thinking and this is typically as far as our education system goes.

I prefer to use the inverted Bloom’s taxonomy because it combines higher-order thinking into a continuum and reveals that analyzing, evaluating, and creating must be conducted in conjunction. The notion of using the information in a new but similar situation detailed in the Applying section seems to match the level of thinking that many students are comfortable with. But, don’t take my word for this. In the following 3 Learner’s Stories podcast Applied Digital Learning (ADL) students reflect on their learning journey and discuss what they have learned and what they would do differently if there were able to start the ADL program now. One of the most consistent laments is that ADL students wished they would have trusted the ADL process sooner and moved away from expecting to be told what to do and simply giving the instructors what they wanted.

COVA Podcast LM Stories EP08
View on Youtube – https://youtu.be/95PpBnkBAxk
Listen on Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/episode/5M5YnqRzG98l3nSHCCc5LY?si=33d092e4d0c04f9d

COVA Reflection LM Stories Ep 09
View on Youtube – https://youtu.be/t4PTGr1WjLI
Listen on Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/episode/2uumYGwgQkUSnsZc1dTYUu?si=61fdbf1a2bde4ecf

COVA Capstone LM Stories Ep 10
View on Youtube – https://youtu.be/ctaKftOOye8
Listen on Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/episode/39c65g9KB4H1DFL5eofico?si=e9c5fba740b84f97

This desire and comfort level of being told what to do and being given a checklist prescription of what is required to complete an assignment falls directly into the lower-order thinking that most of our learners are accustomed to. The original definition from Anderson, Krathwohl, and Bloom’s (2001) of Bloom’s taxonomy aligns with what I have seen with many students:

Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing or implementing. Applying is related and refers to situations where learned material is used through products like models, presentation, interviews, and simulations.

Many just want to be told what procedure or model they need to execute or implement and believe that all they have to present an existing model to their colleagues or simulate the applied approach, and their innovation process is complete. To be fair to many of these students, this is what they know and simply what their administrators, schools, districts, or other organizations ask them to do. Applying an existing model, presenting a summary, and even creating a simulation or a model is the norm. This ongoing process of identifying a standard to be met, finding the approved or accepted procedure or process being used in the organization to meet this standard, and finally applying a standardized test or other information transfer confirmation tools to confirm that the standard has been met by the students is what most educators are engaged in on a daily basis. For rudimentary knowledge, simple situations, and information transfer this application process does work well and our education system has been relying on this model for over a century. As we move further into the digital information age we are realizing that our challenges are much more complex and require much more than doing what we have done in the past. To address these more significant challenges we need to move beyond applying existing information or processes in a new but similar fashion.

Moving to Higher Order Thinking
We need to move into analyzing, evaluating, and creating new solutions to ever-increasing challenges that we and our learners will face in the future. We also need to look beyond convenient summaries, quick fixes, or “Coles Notes” solutions and go back to primary sources to get the full picture. If we want to address the ever-increasing complexities of the challenges we face in the 21st Century then we must use higher-order thinking. We must continually investigate, explore, analyze and evaluate what we are doing as we begin creating innovations that will enhance learning. Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) explanation of the following three higher thinking levels offers the best starting point for our own analysis, evaluation, and creation of a novel way of integrating these ideas.

Analyzing: Breaking material or concepts into parts, determining how the parts relate or interrelate to one another or to an overall structure or purpose. Mental actions include differentiating, organizing, and attributing as well as being able to distinguish between components.

Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing.

Creating – Putting elements together to form a novel coherent whole or make an original product.

Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating Leads to Deeper Learning and Learner’s Mindset
While the inverted Bloom’s taxonomy is useful for helping us to see the linear relationship between analyzing, evaluating, and creating and also see how higher-order thinking is separated from lower-order thinking, it doesn’t convey the interrelatedness between analyzing, evaluating, and creating. It also doesn’t show how the interrelation between analyzing, evaluating, and creating contributes to deeper learning.

The Venn diagram (Harapnuik, 2021) reveals how analyzing, evaluating, and creating come together and at that convergence point is where the learner engages in deeper learning and has then moved into the Learner’s Mindset.

This deeper learning and the adoption of a Learner’s Mindset is realized when you create a significant learning environment in which you give your learner choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities (CSLE+COVA). I have been applying this approach in all the learning environments that I have created and most recently have applied this to the DLL and ADL programs, the Provincial Instructor Diploma Program (PIDP), and all other aspects of my professional and personal life.

In my original post that I referenced at the beginning of this post, I made the grandiose goal of changing the world one learner at a time. A year later, I am still sharing this approach with as many people as I can. It is my hope that you too will begin the ongoing process of analysis, evaluation, and creation. Through a continual and iterative process of analysis of your learning environment, the new concepts, theories, and ideas you are exploring combined with your goal of bringing learning innovation to your organization, you too can begin to explore and evaluate how best to synthesize your findings and ideas into an innovation plan which will create the changes you desire and prepare your learners for life.

Please remember that this is only one part of a bigger picture and this synthesis will be continually evaluated and analyzed so explore the following and provide your feedback to help this ongoing process:

Applied Learning
Assessment Of/For/As Learning
Connecting the Dots Vs Collecting, the Dots
Change of Focus
CLSE
COVA
Feedforward
Learner’s Mindset

Continue to Part 2 – The challenges of owning your learning and higher-order thinking (Part 2)

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Abridge Edition). Addison.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press.

Harapnuik, D.K. (2021). Analyze-evaluate-create-deeper-learning-cropped.png. [Image] https://www.harapnuik.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Analyze-Evaluate-Create-Deeper-Learning-cropped.png

Harapnuik, D.K. (2021). How to change the world, one learner, at a time. [Blog] Retrieved from https://www.harapnuik.org/?p=5555

Harapnuik, D.K. (2017). Reconsider the use of the SAMR model. [Blog]. Retrieved from https://www.harapnuik.org/?p=7235

Reich, J. (2020). Failure to disrupt: Why technology alone can’t transform education. Harvard University Press.

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

Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education: As reported in 355 research reports, summaries, and papers. North Carolina State University.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., Cummings, C. D., & Wooten, R. (2017). Learning all the time and everywhere: Moving beyond the hype of the mobile learning quick fix. In Keengwe, J. S. (Eds.). Handbook of research on mobile technology, constructivism, and meaningful learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. ETS Policy Information Center. https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICTECHNOLOG.pdf

In Learning COVA, CSLE, deeper learning, deeper thinking, higher-order, learners mindset

Own Your Learning

Dwayne Harapnuik — May 5, 2021 — 2 Comments

In Learning, Video - Wednesday Watchlist authentic, COVA, deeper learning, iPad, Learning, ownership, Voice

What if we gave students enough time to learn

Dwayne Harapnuik — March 8, 2016 — Leave a comment

It is widely accepted that eportfolios can help learners “deepen the inquiry process” by enabling them to integrate metacognition or reflection into their learning experience (Catalyst for Learning, n.d.). Eportfolios have the potential to be inviting, reflective, and engaging learning tools that stimulate deeper learning and offer many other benefits and as a result many higher education institutions promote their creation and use. Unfortunately, many educators who have been exploring the use of eportfolios over the past several decades have noticed that despite their wonderful potential as life long learning tools many students stop using their eportfolio after the completion of their program of study.

Researchers, Cynthia Cummings, Thilisa Thibodeaux and Dwayne Harapnuik recognized the need to find out which factors contribute to the continued use, or lack thereof, of the eportfolio. More specifically, these researchers have started a study to identify the factors that contribute to the continued or dis-continued use of eportfolios beyond the student’s program of study. The literature review revealed that choice, ownership, voice and authenticity (COVA) are key factors in encouraging students to go much deeper into learning so Cummings, Thibodeaux and Harapnuik sought to confirm if these factors would also influence the continued or dis-contined use of the eportfolio (Buchem, et el., 2014; Campbell, 2009; Lindgren & McDaniel, 2012; Pink, 2011; Qauglia, (n.d.); Rikard, 2015; Waters, 2015).

The initial results of the study were presented at the AAEEBL Western Regional Conference at Texas Christian University (TCU) in Fort Worth, TX in February, 2016. The study utilized a convergent mixed methods research design and the participants of this study included students from the Educational Technology Leadership master’s program at Lamar University who developed eportfolios as part of their program requirement. The 526 survey participants where first asked if they continued or dis-continued using their eportfolio beyond their program of study and then were asked to a likert scale to rate a list of twenty factors to identify to what extent those factor contributed to their continued or dis-continued use of the eportfolio.

Participants were given three opportunities to complete the online survey over a period of three weeks and 141 participants responded giving the survey just over a 26% response rate.
Using or not using eportfolio numbers

The survey revealed that only 18% of the participants continued to use their eportfolios while 82% stopped using their eportfolios after the completion of their program of study. These results confirmed earlier anecdotal evidence that many students stop using their eportfolios when not required to do so for a course.

The survey also revealed that use of the eportfolio as a career tool, the use of authentic projects, control over assessment of their learning and the management of the eportfolio were the most significant factors that contributed to the continued use of the eportfolio.
Continued use of eportfolio

The primary factors for why students stopped using an eportfolio was the lack of time followed very closely by a lack of interest in eportfolios and lack of management over the eportfolio process.
Discontinued use of eportfolio

Several follow up focus groups were conducted to gain additional insight into the continued or dis-continued use of the eportfolio and see if any additional factors not listed in the survey had impact the students continued or dis-continued use. One focus group participant in the research project confirmed why time is such a significant factor by stating:
“All your time is spent just keeping your head above water; there is no time to think about the benefits of an eportfolio or how to build and structure your eportfolio for use for anything more than document storage”.

For many of the students in the new Masters of Digital Learning and Leading program (DLL) at Lamar University coming out of the first course in the program EDLD 5302 Concepts of Educational Technology this frustration with a lack of time is also a reality. We have often seen students struggle with just learning how to learn to use new technology and concepts so getting the weekly assignments completed and simply dropping an evidence of learning into their eportfolio container is often the most students have been able to accomplish with limited time.

Our initial research findings and original assumptions suggest that if we gave our DLL students enough time and the appropriate environment to experiment with their eportfolio then we should see continued use of the eportfolio. Since the DLL program is new we won’t have our first graduates for the next 18 months, we have some time to wait to officially confirm our assumptions.

The eportfolio is a fundamental component of the DLL program and each course has been designed to utilize authentic projects and the eportfolio to showcase student’s work. EDLD 5303 Applying Educational Technology: Eportfolio is the second course in the DLL which is structured specifically to give students the time to focus completely on and experiment with the eportfolio. The evidence of learning accumulated in EDLD 5302 or through Microsoft Teaching with Technology, Google Educator, or the Apple Distinguished Educator programs can now be shaped and moulded into a well organized and cohesive format to genuinely convey a message beyond basic technology skills competence. In EDLD 5303 students are given the opportunity to move beyond dropping assignments into a digital container and are encouraged to start to consider and show how they plan to use technology to enhance their own learning and their learning environments.

To help shape student’s thinking on eportfolios and to start them on the journey of continuous reflection and revision of their work in EDLD 5303 we ask students to explore the following:

Though this process of working through these ideas in their own eportfolios students will gain an appreciation for the value of the eportfolio as a deeper learning tool.

Next to a lack of time the lack of an appreciation of the value of the eportfolio was another major contributing factor for students who stopped using eportfolios beyond the course of study. Through the use of authentic assessment in all DLL courses and the ability to work on projects that will have a direct impact in the students own learning environment the DLL program gives students choice, ownership, voice and authenticity (COVA) that our research findings have initially confirmed are the key factors in encouraging students to continue using their eportfolios beyond their programs of study.

We are confident that this eportfolio experience started in EDLD 5303 and continued throughout all other DLL courses will provide a solid learning foundation for the DLL M.Ed and for the continued use of the eportfolio beyond this program. If you really want to students to learn deeply and build a foundation for learning how to learn then you need to give students:

The freedom to choose how they wish to organize, structure and present their experiences and evidences of learning
Ownership over the entire eportfolio process – including selection of projects and their portfolio tools
The opportunity to use their own voice to revise and restructure their work and ideas.
The opportunity to prepare their eportfolio platform for all the authentic learning assignments that they will experience in the remainder of the DLL program.

We are also confident that the DLL program will prepare students for the challenges of the future and shape them into the digital leaders that we need to move our educational systems forward.

Our research into this area is really just beginning while we are continuing to examine the data and will be publishing the full results shortly, we are also exploring relationships with other institutions who have used eportfolios in their programs to replicate our research in different settings to further confirm our findings.

References

Buchem, I., Tur, G., Hoelterhof, T., Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., Veen, W., … & Aresta, M. (2014). Learner control in Personal Learning Environments: A cross-cultural study. Learning and Diversity in the Cities of the Future, 13.

Campbell, G. (2009). A Personal Cyberinfrastructure. EDUCAUSE Review, 44(5), 58–59.

Catalyst for Learning Eportfolio Resources and Research (n.d.). Pedagogy. Retrieved from http://c2l.mcnrc.org/pedagogy/

Lindgren, R., & McDaniel, R. (2012). Transforming Online Learning through Narrative and Student Agency. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (4), 344–355.

Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
Chicago

Qauglia, R. (n.d.). Quaglia Institute Framework. Retrieved September 8, 2015, from http://www.qisa.org/framework/

Rikard, A. (2015). Do I Own My Domain If You Grade It? (EdSurge News). Retrieved September 8, 2015, from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2015-08-10-do-i-own-my-domain-if-you-grade-it

Watters, A. (2015, July 15). The Web We Need to Give Students. Retrieved September 10, 2015, from https://medium.com/bright/the-web-we-need-to-give-students-311d97713713

In Eportfolio authentic, authenticity, choice, COVA, deeper learning, Digital Learning and Leading, DLL, Lamar Unviersity, lifelong learning, ownership, Voice

Not Suited for School BUT Suited for Learning: Implications

Dwayne Harapnuik — October 5, 2012 — 4 Comments

Absence of Thought in Education

I have been pondering Grant Wiggins blog post on the absence of thought in education. The following quote demonstrates Wiggins frustration with our current system or process of education–which is a frustration that I share:

If all I do is “teach” you things and then you have to show me you “learned” them, strictly speaking, there is no need for either of us to really think. A need to think only emerges when the work itself is designed to make us both question, really question what we are doing.

Thus, even good schooling may make a “good” student or teacher even less thoughtful. How could it be otherwise, if we simply just do our work, and the work is time-consuming? Our students may graduate without having learned to be thoughtful and many teachers may never grow. One can get straight A’s in almost every school if one merely does all the work. This is not a new idea: I am just updating Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

I have been a critic of the information delivery model of education or what I like to refer to as “recipe and regurgitation” model of instruction my entire academic career. I have not only been a critic of this model I have been working to provide alternatives both in my professional and personal life. Back in 1997 I developed constructivist learning approach called Inquisitivism which emphasizes stimulating a learner’s latent or lost curiosity by creating a learning environment that offers learners “real world” and hands-on learning experiences. This approach has been the foundation for all my instruction and the graduate and undergraduate courses I have taught face2face and online. It has also been a fundamental component of the Creating Significant Learning Environments institutes and various workshops that I have conducted as the Director of Faculty Enrichment at Abilene Christian University.

Making it About the Learning

Because of my dislike of our current model of instruction and my belief in creating significant learning environments my wife and I have also home educated our two boys. We have chosen to create a learning environment in our home and community that uses all aspects of daily life as opportunities for learning. My boys have learned by living, doing, exploring, and creating and have grown into very intelligent and well-rounded teens. It is fair to say that because of my roles as a Home Educator, Learning Theorist, a Professor, Manager of Educational Technology, Director of Faculty Enrichment and most recently as a Vice President Academic I not only have some inside knowledge of our system I also have many years of experience trying to “fix the system” by promoting and applying alternatives…SO I have earned the right to be critical. I also have the right to be critical because the failing in our current educational system adversely impacts my eldest son Levi.

Levi’s Story

Over the past several years we have lived in smaller cities that had very vibrant homeschool communities so my sons were involved in drama companies, bands, sports teams, volunteer organizations and in general had an exceptionally vibrant social experience. Upon our return to Edmonton, Alberta which is ten times larger than where have lived before, we found that opportunities for connecting to a homeschool community that provided a strong social outlet were lacking. In addition, the influence and sway of Alberta Education and the Alberta curriculum were very strong. So when Levi decided he would like to give a traditional public high school a try because we wanted to experience the social dynamic of a school setting I obliged.

Levi’s started public high school half way through his grade 10 year and his first term experience by his standards was satisfactory. He played rugby, co-wrote and performed a drama production, made several friends and had a very positive social experience. Academically, he found that there was lots of busy work but overall public school was much easier than home education he didn’t have to go as deep and make the learning his own. I managed to keep my frustration in check as I helped him with his Science and Social 10 programs which were designed on the information dump principle and used the recipe and regurgitation model of instruction. Levi lucked out in Math 10 to get a recent University graduate who was still somewhat idealistic and caring enough to think that learning was important so his Math 10 experience was very positive. His math experience was also improved significantly through his tutorial sessions with Dr. Zoltan Berkes and amazing Physics Professor from Concordia University who took Levi under his wing and helped him to appreciate how Mathematics combined with Physics can explain the world. Levi’s final overall average for the year was high enough for him to qualify for the Rutherford Scholarship.

When Going Till You Know is Too Much

When we reviewed Levi’s first semester experience in public school this past summer the social factor of school that he enjoyed so much (there are many more girls at school then there is a home) was enough for me to begrudgingly overlook the long hours, make work assignments and the recipe and regurgitation approach that he was experiencing. Ironically and unfortunately, Levi found the recipe and regurgitation approach easier because he didn’t have to work as hard despite the greater time commitment. I repeatedly reminded myself and my wife that the fundamentals of learning that we instilled in Levi would ensure that he could do well in a public school or any other environment. Furthermore, when he was highly motivated or serious about learning something he was interested in he still applied the “go till you know” or “mastery” learning approach that he grew up with…this made me feel a bit better about the learning aspect of his high school experience.

This fall, Levi’s experience with public high school is not as positive as was his first semester…but he is dealing with it much better than I am; hence this post. Since he did well last term he decided to take on the University prep route and register in all 20 level courses. Social, Biology, and Math 20 were the core academic courses for this first term and Chemistry, Physics, and English are the planned core courses for next term. When you factor in his electives and other extracurricular activities he is a typical busy teen. Despite the recipe and regulation nature of Biology and Science in general in the Alberta curriculum, the class is going well. Social is much better because the instructor requires that all readings be done outside of class to prepare for deep discussions in class, so this is a very positive.

Math is not so positive. The instructor’s priority is to cover the content to prepare the students for Math 30. He warned the students that they would be moving through the content quickly so it was their responsibility to keep up. In addition to the focus of “covering the content” the Math curriculum in Alberta has changed and instructors and students are facing “new math”. Unfortunately, when your priority is to cover the content then nothing will be missed in the new curriculum because it takes most instructors one or two terms through the content to determine what is really necessary. Levi’s tutor Dr. Berkes, a highly regarded Physicist, wasn’t too clear on where this new Math curriculum was going so the tutorial sessions were not as helpful as they could be because he wasn’t able to help Levi make a meaningful connection between the math and the real world.

All these factors combined and resulted in Levi spending large amounts of time on his math homework yet he struggled to make meaning in the work. After doing poorly on his first quiz and being concerned about the second quiz Levi was beginning to be concerned that all the extra time he would need to spend on Math to understand it fully would take away from the time he needed to spend on Biology and Social. When I asked Levi what he wasn’t understanding or was missing he replied:

…it’s not that I don’t understand the Math, there is just so much stuff to cover and it takes me longer to get through the work… I don’t just want to understand 60 or 70% of it and move on, I need to understand it all and I just don’t have the time. If I spend all my time on Math my grades in Biology and Social won’t be as good…

As a result of a subsequent conversation with Levi and my wife, we felt that it would be best for Levi to drop the Math and do it at a later time–but we needed to be certain. We also considered Levi switching to the lower level Math for this term to help him prepare for redoing Math 20 in the future so my wife and Levi had a conversation with the Math 20-2 instructor and the school guidance counselor. We found that there is very little connection between the two levels of Math and since Levi is a month into the term he has a lot of content to cover in order to catch up. This would mean that he would be spending significant time on his own catching up on the three units of work he missed while staying current with the new content. The instructor said that the first three units were not cumulative and didn’t build on each other so it was possible to do all the catch-up work while working on the new content. If Levi did all the work then he would do fine in the course.

Preparation for Learning doesn’t Prepare one for School

So Levi’s problem is that he doesn’t want to just do the work and understand 60% or even 70% material he wants to understand it all but this just takes too long. Perhaps, this is where I am to blame and need to apologize to my son for not preparing him for school. In a home education environment, you can take the time to fully understand every concept before you move on and this is how Levi spent the previous 16 years. In contrast, by grade 10 most kids in the public system have 10 years of “covering the content” and “doing the work” and the “A” students, for the most part, are the ones have done the work. The “A” students are also, for the most part, the students who have figured out how the educational system works and know that if they do the work they will get the grades that they want regardless if they have learned anything or not. Many of these students not only expect an “A” but demand it because they have learned to equate doing the work with an “A”.

This leads me back to my opening thought about Grant Wiggins post on going deeper and the absence of thought in education. There are consequences to these sorts of idealistic musing. Educational reformers like Wiggins and myself can postulate and promote all these wonderful notions of going deeper and changing our classrooms and even our schools to be learning centered, but until we fully reform our system kids like Levi and many more will be caught in between where they will be suited for learning but not suited for school.

Levi will be fine. He will do Math 20 and 30 but he may need to do them in a different way… in a way that will give him the time he needs to fully understand and learn. Despite all my work at trying to change the system I still need to apologize to my son.