To me one of the biggest promises of 21st century learning is the idea of differentiation. That learning is no longer one size fits all where the teacher has to decide whether to teach to the middle or one of the extremes. However, recently I have discovered that there are many different visions of the promise of differentiation, and one particular version worries me quite a bit.
One vision of 21st century learning emphasizes a single powerful element of differentiation only. In this paradigm students receive instruction from software that is diagnostic and responsive. Students come to their language arts class, for example, and turn on their computer. They start up their APEX software, Achieve 3000, or some other online curriculum and start their work. Instruction is differentiated because each student may be at a different spot in the curriculum. Students can learn at their own pace, and the program adapts to their needs giving them readings and questions at their current level. This is certainly a powerful type of differentiation. Learning is tailored to the student’s skill level.
Here are my worries. This vision of 21st century learning (which I will call the “Plugged In Vision” or PIV for short)…
- misses an important aspect of differentiation
- will not adequately develop 21st century skills
- places the teacher in the role of facilitator but not in a powerful or important way
- makes technology virtually the only tool for learning
So let me explain my worries because I like to talk and I certainly like to be opinionated.
Worry #1 – The PIV misses an important aspect of differentiation. The curriculum is differentiated by skill level, and this is powerful. However, the curriculum is not differentiated in any other way. What other way is there you may ask? Well, one important aspect of differentiation, in my opinion, is the ability to differentiate instruction by interest as well. A student in the video Learning to Change, Changing to Learn hits the nail on the head when she says that when you have access to everything (via the internet) it forces you to discover what you are really interested in. If I were teaching a unit on forces and motion and one of my students was a skilled programer, maybe one way she could demonstrate mastery would be to develop an iPhone application game on the topic. Or if I have a student who wants to be a songwriter, he can write a song, record it in audacity or garageband on the topic and publish it to CCmixter. To me this is the power of 21st century learning – to help students realize their dreams and develop their talents while they are learning. This is not something that an APEX tutor can do.
Worry #2 – The PIV will not addequately develop 21st century skills. The traditional model of education tends to focus on the learning of facts. That is what students are usually tested on (although some skills are tested such as reading comprehension, etc.) But in a Google It world, facts are at our fingertips. There is no reason to memorize anymore except for those things such as mathematical times tables that we need to be able to use with automaticity. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills identifies some of the core skills students will need to develop in order to be successful in a world where things change quickly and information is infinite. Some of these skills are innovation, creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, communication, collaboration, etc. Now I am not an expert with these online curriculums, but from what I’ve seen and heard, these programs do not develop these important 21st century skills. In fact, with each student staring at their own computer screen during an entire class period doing their own thing, the differentiation in skill level that the software provides hinders the ability to communicate and collaborate in the classroom. I could ramble on about this, but I’ll stop there.
Worry #3 – The PIV places the teacher in the role of facilitator but not in a powerful or important way. It is fairly widely agreed upon that “The Sage on the Stage” model of teaching should be replaced by a model where the teacher acts as a facilitator or guide. Although the PIV model certainly removes the “Sage on the Stage” the facilitator role that emerges is very limited. From what I understand from proponents of the PIV model, teachers job becomes that of a helper when students are having a hard time and a manager of the classroom, and that’s about it. The software does the teaching, the evaluation, the interaction. What I hope for in 21st century learning facilitator is a teacher who is creative and responsive, who is constantly evaluating and adjusting. Now I understand the worry of the PIV proponents. The argument is that many teachers do not have the technology skill set (and unfortunately in some cases the pedagogical and content knowledge and skill set) to be able to teach in the responsive way that is possible with new technologies. This is clearly an important point and the burden is on those of us who envision something other than the PIV model to find a way to develop these skills in our current teacher workforce and help develop skill with a new pedagogy. Where I disagree with the PIV proponents is I believe it is possible to develop this and I believe it is worth it to find a way to do it. Just because we have largely been unsuccessful developing this does not mean that we should give up. To give up would be quite dismissive of teachers and their abilities.
Worry #4 – PIV makes technology virtually the only tool for learning. When students walk into a classroom, turn on their computer and plug in for the duration, instruction ignores the many tools that are possible both high tech and low tech. Manipulatives, whiteboards (both interactive and not), PAPER, human simulations and performances, etc. are also valuable means of learning, collaborating, and commicating. Just because computers are a VERY powerful tool does not mean that we should ignore all of the other many tools and strategies that are possible.
Now I feel it is important that I explain my vision a little bit. My argument is not that diagnostic curriculum such as Achieve 3000 and curriculum that allows students to learn at their own pace such as APEX should not be used. In fact, I think these tools could be very powerful integrated into a curriculum where students are challenged to do exciting things. But I believe that project-based learning is more likely to develop the important skills that will help students become life-long learners that are adaptable and excited about learning. I believe that I would be extremely bored and more likely to drop out of school if I went to seven periods a day where I walked into class, plugged in and did not interact with my classmates or teacher. This to me is a bleak vision of 21st century learning.
Luckily, I am just starting a class with Dr. Fred Saba at SDSU and I’m looking forward to learning more about the power of 21st century education where interaction and responsiveness are key. I am hoping to develop a more robust and informed vision myself.
Thanks for reading!