Assignment #4: Playing Favorites

I’ll admit to the one thing a teacher a should never admit; having a favorite. Among the 37 indicators in our District’s adopted evaluation framework there is one that is my absolute favorite. If you scan through all the indicators you’ll find one that lives in the Student Engagement dimension titled Ownership of Learning and that is the one I hold above all others.

The reason for this is that I truly believe it’s foundational to the learning process itself. Its' implementation at the highest level requires an artistic balance between teacher support and student independence. It requires a teacher to be diligent in thinking through strategies and support systems for students and then it requires them to do something which can feel counter-intuitive to all this work; it requires they “let go”. Undoubtedly this “letting go” process results in a certain amount of chaos. It often highlights the weak points within the systems and strategies that a teacher has worked so hard to establish.

Sadly, I don’t get to opportunity to witness this indicator in action nearly enough. I suspect it’s scarcity in action is because of the artistic balance between support and independence that I spoke of earlier. Teachers can find themselves making two critical mistakes which both go against the true intent of Ownership of Learning. The first mistake is that a teacher is intentional in creating and implementing strategy and support systems, but they never “let go”; never giving students an opportunity to independently access and utilize the strategy and support systems in a way that is self-initiated. From this mindset, a teacher may be fearful to have the weak-points of their hard work exposed. A second critical mistake a teacher can make that works against the intent of Ownership of Learning is “letting go” too soon and too much. For this teacher , they were either lacking in their strategy and support systems from the get-go, or they never revised these strategies and supports once their inevitable weak-points were highlighted by students.

So what’s this all have to do with one-to-one device implementation? Everything. When I think about the readings of all failures and challenges of Successful one-to-one device implementations the theme of ownership encapsulates it all. More specifically, the idea that successful one-to-one implementations (or should I use Alan November’s phrase and say “one-to world”) require that same artistic balance between support and independence I spoke about earlier. From a whole systems perspective, the District must find that artistic balance between support and independence. Strategy and support must be carefully planned and set-up before simply giving all teachers and students a device and “letting go”. On the other hand, the District must be willing to actually release independence to teachers and thus to students. They must release teachers and students to utilize the devices in an authentic way. Trying to direct the use of the devices in mechanical way is, in essence, never really “letting go”. Districts must be humble enough to have the weak-points of their systems revealed. Once revealed, they must be willing to revise those carefully planned strategies and supports. From the teacher perspective, this same process should flow toward their implementation of devices with students. Using that same never-ending cycle between planning strategies and systems, releasing students to authentically and independently use the devices, and then revising the flaws in systems and support.

So what can be the vehicle to establish this kind of Ownership of Learning with device implementation? Among other things, I believe the Common Core initiative can be a driving force in this effort. Common Core has gotten an unfair negative reputation because of its' difficulty. It defines learning parameters that are authentic and cannot simply be taught through skill isolation alone. Successful implementation requires skills to be taught but it also requires that a teacher “let go” and allows students to own their learning. It requires a student not just know a skill but to know which skill to access, how to access it, and then to apply it situationally. Sound familiar? In my humble opinion, this speaks to the heart of Ownership of Learning. It involves a delicate interplay between support and independence. Without any skill support a student has no shot. With only teacher-directed skill support, a student doesn’t ever get the chance to go through the process of initiating those supports on their own. Common Core provides us the perfect platform to rethink not simply the tools we are using but the actual pedagogical process we are apply them with.

Alan November in his article title “Why Schools Must Move Beyond One-to-One Computing” put it best when he stated, “Adding a digital device to the classroom without a fundamental change in the culture of teaching and learning will not lead to significant improvement.”. I know, as is the case with having any favorite, that I am biased. But the fundamental shift I think November is talking about is best titled Ownership of Learning.