mern presentation, january 2015

The Possibilities of Transforming Learning

Barry Dyck@barry_dyck

M. Ed. Thesis (2013) Mini-viewShared at MERN, January 30, 2015

• “It is critical that we become active researchers and developers of innovations and new directions” (Jacobs, 2010).

the challenge

“The necessary knowledge to solve the

problem must be created in the act of

working on it.” (Wagner & Kegan, 2006, p. 76)

new framework imagined

put students first

embrace cultural

change & practices

realign assessment

take on a revolutionar

y mindset

significance of the study

• We need research of educators who are taking risks to construct adaptive environments that support student learning.

scope of the study

• This is one practitioner’s journey of interpreted experiences of the phenomenon of constructing meaning in praxis through reflection and action.

practitioner-researcher lens

• Inquiry as stance positions the knowledge and expertise of practitioners at the center of educational transformation (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2011).

learning environment elements

inquiry learning model

inter-disciplinary, student-teacher

developed curriculum

multi-grade classroom

internship opportunities for learning outside the classroom

review of the literature

• What effective elements of alternative programs and alternative schools could be used in my context?

• What could I learn about designing a learning environment characterized by a pedagogy of care, constructivism and student-centered learning?

• How could I in turn, use this framework to evaluate the effectiveness of the program?

alternative programs

• provide more student control• build own knowledge• take responsibility for their learning• build abilities to learn how to learn• develop assessment that promotes learning

not grades

alternative schools

• Sudbury• Montessori• Waldorf (Steiner)• Big Picture Learning (MET in RI, MET Garden

City )• Manhattan Free School (Agile Learning Center)

learning environment

pedagogy of care

constructivist learning

student-centered learning

informing design: a pedagogy of care

• caring relations: foundation for pedagogic activity (Noddings, 2005)

“No teacher who respects their students would make them mindlessly learn.

- recent student comment

viewing in practice: pedagogy of care

model careengage in

open dialogue

provide students

opportunities to practice

care

confirm the best in

students (Noddings,

2005)

informing design: constructivist learning

• an interpretive, recursive, nonlinear building process by active learners interacting with their physical and social world

• requires considerable time and effort

viewing in practice: constructivist learning

Constructivism is a learning theory and not a teaching strategy.• inquiry-based learning (project-based,

problem-based, learning by design)

informing design: student-centered learning

Student-centered learning is about personalizing the “what”

and “how” of learning.

informing design: student-centered learning

• start with experiences and interests of students

• do--self-directed, purposeful, meaningful life and work

research questions

• How did a focus on a pedagogy of care create a learning culture from the perspective of practitioner and student?

Pedagogy of Care

• What happened when I implemented a constructivist approach to teaching and student learning?

Constructivist Learning

• To what extent did giving students greater self-direction, choice, and control of their curriculum impact their learning experiences?

Student-Centered Learning

practitioner data

• practitioner journals• practitioner-research notes• practitioner responses to student reflections• year-end divisional report

student data

• student learning reflections• student planning documents• focus group transcripts• follow-up interviews

analysis of data

• The rhizome is about uncertainty (Cormier, 2011). “…[it] represents a critical leap in coping with the loss of a canon against which to compare, judge, and value knowledge, may be particularly apt as a model for disciplines on the bleeding edge where the canon is fluid and knowledge is a moving target” (Cormier, 2008).

analysis of data

– the mapping of connection between discourses– the focus is on what is being made or what could

possibly be made

analysis of data

– Lines of flight lead in any direction and arise in the constant struggle between lines of consistency (stabilizing forces) and lines of flight (destabilizing forces).

– Lines of flight open possibilities for change.

analysis of data

I read the data with these questions in mind:• What are the ruptures, offshoots, connections, new

directions—the lines of flight—that took place?• Which lines of flight are similar, overlapping, or

contradictory?• Where is learning being transformed here? Is it?

analysis of data

• I used the participants’ language to identify section headings.

data

“School is boring. Let me get on with my life. Let me learn my own way.”

“What I was doing actually mattered.”

data

“Learning isn’t necessarily linear.”

data

“I feel like I haven’t accomplished anything because I don’t have a mark in front of me

or physical evidence of my learning.”

data

• The shift from a performance orientation (ability, evidence, product-based) to a learning orientation (effort, intrinsic, interest-motivated) resulted in more adaptive motivational patterns (Dweck, 1986).

“I’m learning this for me, and not for you.”

data

“I always thought of you as part of the program too.”

data

What am I doing differently here that cannot be done in a regular classroom?

data

• all students graduated, with several receiving scholarships and awards;

• I struggled with satisfying the requirements of prescribed curriculum and encouraging the students’ self-constructed curriculum.

implications of the study

• Is it possible to support a senior years flexible learning environment (learn what you want, where and when you want) in a public school where students can earn some credits for graduation?

• Can another concept of learning and knowledge work with the current, dominant one?

implications of the study

Discoveries• students must know that they matter• practitioners must assist students in becoming

reflective meaning makers• self-constructed learning positions one for

lifelong learning

implications of the study

Understandings required• Teachers must be able to embrace ambiguity: “a

true problem…is never fully solved” (Roy, 2003)• The teacher still plays a central, albeit significantly

different role than in a traditional classroom. • Teachers will require professional development to

work in an innovative learning environment.

implications of the study

Understandings required• Teachers must see themselves first as learners.• Learning opportunities should be social to

prevent individuals from working in isolation.

implications of the study

Understandings required• The knowledge legitimized by the school

curriculum must change (Cassassus et al., 2008). We must ask ourselves what are we educating for? Knowledge is not fixed or limited. We need to know what they are going to do with the knowledge.

implications of the study

Possibilities for change• A rhizomatic conception of learning is where

curriculum is “constructed and negotiated in real time by the contributions of those engaged in the learning process” (Cormier, 2008, “The Rhizomatic Model of Education”)

implications of the study

Possibilities for change• Action is required. (batteries not included)• We need an approved learning environment

design that allows for alternative and innovative, “just-in-time,” learner-constructed curriculum that qualifies for certification.

enter the rhizome…

@barry_dyck

ReferencesAirasian, Peter W. and Walsh, Mary E. (1997). Constructivist Cautions. Phi Delta Kappan; Cassassus, J., et al. (2008). The Construction of Learning Environments Lessons from the Mexico Exploratory Phase. In OECD, Innovating to Learn, Learning to Innovate, OECD Publishing. Feb, 78(6), 444-450.Alvermann, D. (2000). Researching libraries, literacies, and lives. In W. S. Pillow (Ed.), Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education (pp. 114-148). New York, NY: Routledge. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as Stance. New York: Teachers College Press.Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (2011). Beyond Certainty: Taking an Inquiry Stance on Practice. Chapter 4 Lieberman in A. and Miller, L. (eds.) Teachers Caught in the Action: Professional Development That Matters. New York: Teachers College Press. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage. Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum. Retrieve March, 2011 from http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/06/03/rhizomatic-education-community-as-curriculum/

ReferencesCormier, D. (2011). Rhizomatic Learning and MOOCs – Assessment. Retrieved March, 2011 from http://davecormier.com/edblog/category/rhizomes.Darling-Hammond, & Barron, B. (2008). Teaching for Meaningful Learning: A review of research on Inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Retrieved August 2011 from http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/edutopia-teaching-for-meaningful-learning.pdf Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Fosnot, C.T. and Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A Psychological Theory of Learning. In Fosnot, C.T. (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory Perspectives and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Gatto, John Taylor. (2009). Weapons of Mass Instruction. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

ReferencesGoswami, D., C. Lewis, C., Rutherford, M., and Waff, Diane. (2009). On teacher inquiry: Approaches to language and literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.Gough, N. (2006). Sharing the tree, making a rhizome: Towards a nomadic geophilosophy of science education. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 38(5), 625-645.Greenbaum, T. L. (1998). The Handbook of Focus Group Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Holt, J. C. (1976). Instead of education: Ways to help people do things better. New York: Dutton.Honan, E. (2007). Writing a rhizome: An (im)plausible methodology. Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(5), 535-546.Leander, K. M., & Rowe, D.W. (2006). Mapping literacy spaces in motion: A rhizomatic analysis of a classroom literacy performance. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 428-460.Lear, S. J., D. Stephenson, and J. Troy (2003). Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to Student Centered Learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’. Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 321-334.

ReferencesNoddings, N. (2002). Starting at home: Caring and social policy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Piaget, J. (1953). The origin of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Paul.Robinson, Sir Ken. (2006). Bring on the learning revolution. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html Roy, K. (2003). Teachers in nomadic spaces: Deleuze and curriculum. New York: P. Lang.Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., Rook, D. W. (2007) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.Usher, Robin. (2010). Riding the lines of flight. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 1(1-2), 67-78.Wallin, J. J. (2010). Rhizomania: Five Provocations on a Concept. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 7(2), 83-89.Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.