Personalized Learning as a Curricular Design

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

The premise behind individualized/personalized learning has been a driving force in my teaching for many years. I am a small rural school’s computer science teacher, and that leaves everything related to a computer under my purview. My class ranges from programming to computer design and from digital music to movie creation, all at the same time, in the same room. Therefore, stand and deliver is not an option and I am required to look at the best way to engage all. Though my classes and learning is going well, I know I can enhance my teaching practice. I am constantly reflecting upon this process to make sure all student’s needs are being met. This refinement is based on the ideas that each student has a say in their learning. This collaborative, yet personalized process, is a messy minefield that I question daily. I look at the students and can’t help but think the non-defined conclusion of personalized learning is antithetical to the way I was taught.

I am anchoring myself, every time I reflect, on the notion that what the students are learning is based on their goals and interests. To be honest, when I first tried this method, I had to fight my predetermined idea of what education was, based on my experience. If all students in my class of 30 are doing something different, is there any proof that the daily output is meeting this mythical standard I had in my mind; a standard that was cultivated when I was in school and was achieved by handing in a completed worksheet, or finishing the assigned questions? The more I research and the more I look at student engagement and finished product; I realize that none of these learning evidence pieces would exist if they were doing only what I prescribed. The question is, why is it so hard for me to practice what I truly believe will work for all, over what I know works for only some? Is my need for control worth more than their learning and expression?

Dumont, Istance, and Benavides (2010) discussed a socio-constructivist curricular paradigm looking at the role of personalized learning as integral to create adaptive minds that are flexible and creative. That is to say, the situation drives the answer, not the other way around. These authors state, “In order to support the progressive acquisition of adaptive expertise
 [t]he teacher should leave open opportunities for ‘expressive outcomes’ – unanticipated results from the learning that takes place” (Dumont et.al, 2010, p. 4). The idea of pre-determined, form-fitting education as lacking real-world validity is echoed by other scholars.

Paul France (2020) was not shy at discussing the failings of standardized, impersonal curriculum. France states, “it’s clear that one-size-fits-all curriculum isn’t quite making the cut. As a result, the standardization movement has been met with a new movement: one that values differentiation, individualization, and personalization” (2020, p. 8). The premise of prescription over exploration creates a funnel that only allows for a predetermined set of outcomes to come to pass. France (2020), like Dumont et al. (2010), points out that executive function and flexibility is core to the goals of the curriculum when he states,

To create classrooms and schools that are fair, impartial, and equitable, we must remember that students need much more than appropriate academic content to reach their full potential. They need explicit instruction in executive functioning skills; they need to cultivate self-awareness, agency, and autonomy; and above all else, students need access and inclusion. (France, 2020, p.18)

These tenets are core in our curriculum documents in BC. Examples of these curricular tenets are, “[p]ersonal design choices require self-exploration and refinement of skills”, and “[t]ake creative risks in generating ideas and add to others’ ideas in ways that enhance them” (“Media design 10 | Building student success,” n.d.). With the latitude we are afforded as educators, we should endeavour to educate the whole student.

In conclusion, the more I read on the topic, and the more I practice personalized learning, leads me to feel validated in the efficacy of the curricular idea, but also feeling challenged to make sure that all learners are being reached and able to express their learning. I know there are areas I can, and must, improve in terms of both learner conferencing and goal creation, to name a few. I am actively trying new techniques, and adapting them to my whole classroom situation and the learners individually.          Furthermore, it is hard to break the lessons of our past. The way I learned was successful for me, therefore that is how a class should look in my eyes. However, acknowledging that the way I learned as a youth is not functional to all, thus creating an equity gap in my class, is the unintended result if I am not willing to adapt. I have been using the personalized/individual approach for years, and the few failures I have seen thus far are more on my lack of conviction in the process, leading to only limited implementation. Once there is a solid scaffold, I have found the less the reigns are controlling the learner, the possibilities for the creation of the executive functions, needed in all life settings, are realized.

 

References

Dumont, H., D. Istance and F. Benavides (eds.) (2010), The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/10.1787/9789264086487-en.

France, P. (2020). Reclaiming personalized learning Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin doi: 10.4135/9781544360652

Media design 10 | Building student success. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/adst/10/media-design

 

The Seesaw of Curriculum

Photo by Jon Sailer on Unsplash

It is my opinion that curriculum is a Seesaw. This is based on the premise that for one to be up, the other must be down. I am not implying this to be true in all cases, I am basing this off the interactions I have had with colleagues that seems to sum up the dichotic nature we are in as a society.

Seesaws are a simple construct. One side goes up, and the other goes down as force is applied by pushing on the ground. This is true of the educational practices that we see changing all the time. But why? Is all that is old, bad? No. Does what is proven to be useful become pointless because there is something new and shiny? That seems to be the way some districts and schools think. If one side of the seesaw is on the top, then falls because the applied upwards force (support of people) has diminished, should it be cast out and replaced? Here is an example to illustrate my point. I was a Whole-Language product in school, which meant phonics was bad and that Whole-Language was the best way for me to explore language. That may work with some, but was an epic failure for me. I still struggle with some basics, and my spelling is brutal (thank you spell-check). Would phonics have increased my abilities? Maybe. However, the issue was, we were using Whole-Language only. This is the core issue that pervades the educational system of thought. For me, the best place to be on a seesaw is the middle. If you apply enough stabilizing force to the middle, you will hold up both sides; that way the learning can be student-centred, based on their needs and not the prevailing wind of pedagogy. We must break the idea that for one to be true, the other needs to be false. Sometimes, both are true when interpreted through the needs of the learners in front of you.

I teach at Fort St. James Secondary School in Computer Science and Senior Humanities. In a school as small as ours, Computer Science means everything in one class, from making movies and digital music to coding and game creation, and everything in between, in one room at one time. This affords collaboration with each learner as to what they are learning, why they want to learn that, and how they will display that learning. In the Senior Humanities, the content is more structured but demands individual engagement. I do not allow for much sheer regurgitation. Context is everything.

In response to Egan and Blades articles, I would say I was left more confused than when I came in, in terms of what curriculum is. I found Egan’s (2003) historical perspective to be well laid out, but his conclusion that content is more important than the process is to me, simplistic, as either one is hindered by the weakness in the other. 

Blades’ (1997) article was more of a deconstruction of what we find comfortable, compared to what is possible. He states, “I realized then for change to be possible, it would not be enough to determine how enframing works; the task ahead involves a constant effort to remove the frame whenever and wherever it appeared” (p.150). I find myself agreeing with Blade. If we only do what is, or has been done, we miss all that is possible. 

It is most important to look at curriculum through the lens of teacher autonomy. Furthermore, due to the recent, open but scaffolded, changes in the BC Curriculum, this autonomy allows us to shape the content we teach and certain freedom as to how we design its process. This ability gives us, as individual educators, the freedom to balance the seesaw by using the pedagogy that fits for the class, both as a whole and the individual learners in the class. 

 

References

Blades, D. (1997) Procedures of Power in a Curriculum Discourse: Conversations from Home.      JCT, 11(4), 125-155.

Egan, K. (2003) What is Curriculum? JCACS, 1(1), 9-16.

What Vs. How? Why.

Photo by Emily Morter on Unsplash

Photo by Emily Morter on Unsplash

When looking at the idea of What vs How; I ask Why (I dislike dichotomies)? Why represents the purpose of action beyond how and what. What is the base of the content you are teaching, and how is the delivery. Both important and I would argue, out the two choices, I would side with how. Is what is being learned, for a purpose for life experience, beyond a grade? If true, it is essential that we teach students to think critically and have a logical purpose in solving issues. That is essential. If we are selecting what we teach, meeting the broad BC Curriculum, based on the process more than the end goal, that greatly improves the options of how we teach that material, what material we decide to teach, and how the students explore for the answers. 

As it pertains to the question at hand, Egan states that what is more important than how. However, what is directly entwined with how. If what is being taught is flawed, senseless, futile, or baseless then how we teach it is pointless. Conversely, if what is being taught is useful, but how it is taught is feckless and poorly delivered, then the what becomes less important.

I am a technology teacher and I find the importance of how I teach, directly affects what is being taught. Most students are afraid of being out of their comfort zone, and if their experience with particular software, no matter its true future value, is poor or too ridged, they will be less likely to use that software. Therefore, how I taught the software directly affected what was being taught; the efficacy of the software.

I will sum up by saying that life is ambiguous. If we are looking for a linear direction in every instance that life provides then we are going to stop moving. Ambiguity means choice. Furthermore, choice means options, and options mean problem-solving. Therefore, let’s arm the future with the skills that will allow them to navigate or society.

P.S. as for the clarity of this article, it would have been more clear if the author had a 500-word count, just saying. The metaphor really took on more than it needed to.

Andrew Vogelsang