Some of you (that drop into the blog from time to time) will have noticed that my “bouts of bloggery” have been a bit few and far between over the past few weeks (with the exception of the mega mini-soap I have been doing on the Rocks n’ Hard Places in “curriculum pacing guides” – BTW, I’ve taken a bit of “time off” before I do Part 05)…
The reason? Well, I’ve been working on a book with an old pal of mine here in Ankara (trust me – “books” are far more hard work than throwing out a few hundred words of “blog-o-rrea” every week or so). I won’t get into the details of the book (but Part 04 of Rocks n’ Hard Places will give you an idea of how we are trying to make it a bit “different”) – suffice to say – the idea of “LEARNing that lasts” is a big part of it.
Now, some of you might say – “Duh! Of course, LEARNing should last…if not, what’s the point?”
…and, you’d be right!
…even though we know (in our heart-of-hearts) LEARNing needs to be at heart of our decision-making in education, it is NOT…well, not “LEARNing of the LASTing variety”!
Oh, God! He’s off again…
Hear me out! Hear me out!
I promise this is not a “rant” – well, not too much of a “rant”!
You see, in the institutional coin toss between LEARNing and TEACHing – and, despite what we might think we know about “probability on the heads or tails front” – TEACHing still comes up trumps with more frequency than it should!
Most people have a perspective on TEACHing (especially, it would seem, politicians and so-called edu-reformers) – they have a viewpoint, an “opinion” on TEACHing. Usually, this viewpoint is all about that a crap job educators and teachers are doing these days – and how we could all do a far better job if we just used more technology or did more standardised tests).
Teachers, however, especially “thunking teachers” tend to “take a TEACHing PERSPECTIVE” (they take a “stance”, they take a position) – and this position informs their “practice”).
Think about the “difference” between the “have” and the “take” for a minute – very different, yes?
Taking a TEACHing Perspective is usually more “principled”, more “conscious”, more “informed” – in classroom TEACHing it means what is said and done in the classroom is more likely to be based on more principled approaches or methods, and guide what teachers do in the classroom. Nothing wrong with that – if only more politicians and “self-anointed reformers” did the same (or just knew what the hell they were banging on about)!
However, we also have to realise that TEACHers “grow up” in educational institutions – some of them do teacher education programmes, some of them take the more academic track (but end up doing more TEACHing than research – what they are trained to do). Both of these groups, so the research tells us, do more LEARNing on-the-job or keep on with the ways they were LEARNed (by others on-the-job) – in institutions. These institutions “socialise” TEACHers into certain ways of thinking, certain ways of doing – or acting.
The problem is – wait for it – most of these institutions are (still) grounded on a fundamental “design flaw”. In fact, we could say – or rather, I would say:
Barr and Tagg said it better than I ever could (over 15 years ago)…
They elaborated (over 15 years ago)…
A lot of teachers “heard” them…a few institutions “read” the article…but…not much has changed since then – 17 years ago!
Which is why, lads n’ lasses… so many teachers still focus on “taking a TEACHing PERSPECTIVE” rather than “taking a LEARNing PERSPECTIVE”.
Even though we know (don’t we?) that…
Perhaps, this is why we see so such “poverty” in the way we define LEARNing. For example, look at how this world-famous dictionary “explains” what LEARNing is:
Shiriously? Is that the best we do???
What about this one? I stumbled on this yesterday…in a (very) popular blog for teachers…by teachers:
Me thinks I might have to stop defending me teacher-blogger pals, if this the best we can do!
Sorry, guys – this just does not cut it…
This one? This time a favourite of psychologists and therapists:
OK – I’m seeing “something” here. But, did Hannibal’s behaviour really “change” in a LASTing manner – Clarice?
As much as the “novelty” of this one (from a world famous “self-help guru” – also a “teacher”) almost got me, again it just lacked the “stuff”!
Actually, and it pains me to say this, but Wikipedia managed to come up with a half-decent definition:
Shock, horror! Credit where credit’s due, boys and girls! Pity they won’t be around much longer!
Tony, stay focussed – we’re talking about “LEARNing that LASTS”!
OK – in an earlier post, I told you about a little place I visited a fair few years ago – Alverno College, in Milwaukee. A place that had quite a profound effect on how I (now) “do business” in education.
In that post, I think I said something like – the “guys” at Alverno made me see…
You see, they “invented” the phrase “LEARNing That Lasts” (you have to check out “The” BOOK, if you haven’t already – it became one of my LEARNing “Bibles” – and still is)!
For example, take a look at their “definition” of LEARNing – compare it with the ones we have just looked at…
Much better, yes?
What I saw in the work the faculty at Alverno had been doing (since 1973 – 22 years before Barr and Tagg talked about their “design flaw”) was that to get to “LEARNing that LASTS” we have to move on further than what students “know” – we have to move onto what they can “do” with what they know. Even more than that – we also have to move onto how they can “keep improving” what they can do with what they know (and LEARN – with us)!
It’s a mouthful…I know!
It’s also about how students think, feel and act…and how these things impact their decision-making, choices and interactions with others – well beyond “graduation” and their “formal” education…
That is “LEARNing that LASTS” – LEARNing that makes a significant and sustainable (and “real”) difference to the lives of LEARNers…
Now, I’m guessing that around about “now” – the question on your lips is:
…sure it is!
That was the exact same question I had all those years back!
Did they have bags of money? Did they have more resources than God? Did they have hundreds of teachers just sitting around twiddling their thumbs?
They just realised “something” was not “quite right” – they realised that they could be doing better…and that “something” was all about…
Bet you your next pay-check that you thought I was going to say “LEARNing” – yes?
Remember a bit earlier – we were going on about having a perspective on TEACHing and taking a TEACHing PERSPECTIVE. The same “distinction” is true of curriculum. Most educators “have a perspective on curriculum” (we hate it – especially when it comes in the form of a “pacing guide”) – but very few of us:
Sorry about that…could not resist…this is a looooooooong post!
This is what Alverno set out to do.
However, what I think (IMHO) they were “really” doing was starting out on a journey that ultimately would lead them to “take a LEARNing PERSPECTIVE” – and create a “real” (educational) “LEARNing Organisation”.
This was very significant – a very radical (institutional) change!
They realised that “rethunking education” and LEARNing was not just about changing course content (or course codes) – it requires new thunking about curriculum, assessment, and teacher development.
What did Dexter say?
They just “got” that reinvention of their approach to curriculum and assessment first required that they make explicit their assumptions (and values) about LEARNing itself.
Now, you see why I have been asking so many questions…and inviting people to do the same on the blog (with a little help from Peter Block – for those of you that want to go back to Türkçe).
The result – Alverno established its core purpose as being to develop those abilities students need to be successful as LEARNers, employees and citizens. In doing so they redefined curriculum around an explicit set of eight abilities:
…and developed a collaborative, interdisciplinary pedagogy and LEARNing process capable of continuous improvement, and…(wait for this ONE)…required students to demonstrate competence in the eight abilities as a condition for graduation.
They actually…and this will make you crap your pants (if you work in a “testing unit”)…they “did away with”…grades – and opted for a system that focussed on “results”!
And…you wonder why I fell in love with the place…and all the lovely faculty there!
Now, if you are a “HOW-Guy” (rather than a “WHY-Guy” or “Gal”) – you have probably realised that I have not fully answered the question:
…and, you’d be right!
I am actually thinking (yes, right now – as I type away) whether to split this post into two (Mmmmm, split it up I might) – but hey, what the hell – you survived this far!
Welcome to Tony’s OPUS-MAXIMUS…for the month!
They focussed on TEACHer LEARNing! Well, actually, it was a bit more like a process of Q-CBL and CPD for Educators (I’m still working on that acronym – not quite there, yet)
…and “yes”…I do own the “rights” to that one!
Like all sensible institutions, the Alverno guys, knew that:
So, they started a series of LEARNing Conversations in their faculty teams (within and across all their teams). They also knew that there was a huge difference between questions like:
Just about “heads or tails” it is not…
The core question they started with was, of course (canlarım benim):
Now, if you want (and you need a “rest”) – take 5 minutes and write your own version. Tweet it to 10 other teachers – and see what you get back (seriously)!
The point here is that teachers can answer these questions on their “own” – but with collaboration, the benefits really start to kick in.
Institutions – you have no choice! If you want to do “right” by your TEACHers and LEARNers!
The Alverno faculty did not stop there (though I hear it took around 6 months to get something half-decent on that first question). They then tackled these two:
They look pretty self-explanatory – do not be fooled! It’s the “LEARNing conversations” around these questions which is the focus. The “process” is what gets “results” – the “product” is sharing, clarification and “adaptation”!
There were others:
And, they just kept getting better and better;
Now, here we have a couple of seriously heavy-weight questions – as soon as we put the focus on LEARNing (and LEARNers), all that “content” just seems a waste of time.
OK, that’s a bit harsh – but, compare the question “What CONTENT do I want to TEACH?” and the question “What TYPE of HUMAN BEING do I want to help BUILD?”
…no contest really!
This is where Alverno really began to evaluate what they were TEACHing – and started to reinvent their curriculum around the set of eight abilities we noted above (do take some time to wander around their website – just been updated and very cool)!
These two questions alone should give teachers days-and-days of fun – especially, when part of a “curriculum renewal” project.
Obviously, I am cutting a few corners here (that’s what we bloggers do, yes?) – they had many more questions that they worked to get to grips with and what they were doing was starting a long (a very long) process of trying to work out how they, the faculty, could best “cultivate” integrative and expansive capabilities across the lifetime of their LEARNers – knock this off in a long weekend, we cannot!
To do this, they also had to bring the two side of the coin together – with TWO of my personal favourites:
…followed by my all-time favourite – that “question-of-questions”:
“The” BOOK I mentioned earlier, tracks the first 20 years of the Alverno “project” – a longitudinal study of how the faculty at the college created “LEARNing That LASTS” for their students with their highly acclaimed curriculum/assessment (and LEARNing-TEACHing) model.
Their “project” continues today…as it should…as it will always!
…I hear someone scream!
“You got me to read over 2,000 words – not including all the text in the images – and you ain’t even answered the question you posed in the post title”!
Always wondered what it would be like to say something like “that”!
I am not that “mean” – for me, what the Alverno project shows is that it is very possible – very possible! The secret – creating “LEARNing That LASTS” is essentially a question of:
…and ongoing “adaptation”:
After all, “adaptation” is LEARNing – for both LEARNers and TEACHers!
In this post (though it was not really my “plan” – blogging is kinda like that), we’ve explored the nature of LEARNing. I offered my own definition (birthed with the help of many hands), as well as other (not always so great) definitions.
When we think about TEACHing in this context – it is really all about helping or supporting this process and includes all of the things that we do to make it happen – whatever that definition might be (and this will “vary” according to context – in addition to teacher or institution).
These things we must be “aligned” – to what we believe, what we say we believe, what we “do” and, most importantly – what we do to “improve” in everything we do to make LEARNing happen (and LAST).
The starting point is to make these things “explicit” – for ourselves, initially – working with “others” (or on twitter) takes care of the rest…
The Alverno model has become a next practice model for “doing business” very differently in education and a way of “adding real value” to students – value that is praised by the business and community organisations around Wisconsin and the U.S.
Alverno got it so RIGHT…so many years ago!
And, the set of Q-CBL questions developed and used by Alverno faculty are the nuts n’ bolts of the three questions every teacher (and institution) needs to ask on a regular and on-going basis:
The other question:
…in YOU, in YOUR COLLEAGUES, in YOUR INSTITUTION!
In the end, and this will not be in “the book”:
I am such a “geek”!