Student and Teacher Motivational Needs in the School Setting

Motivation is not only important in its own right; it is also an important predictor of learning and achievement. Students who are more motivated to learn persist longer, produce higher quality effort, learn more deeply, and perform better in classes and on standardized tests. It’s commonsense, but it’s also reinforced by hundreds of studies (An Important Piece of the Student Motivation Puzzle).

The topic of teacher and student motivational needs is too often given tangential thought and discussion. I know that teachers, curriculum specialists, and administrators believe in its importance, but I rarely see it brought up in readings and professional development. I propose that it is at the core of learning and as such, needs to be forefront of all teaching and learning.

In addition to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, motivation theories of William Glasser, David McClelland, and Fredrick Herzberg have application to a school environment. Looking at theories of motivation can create a broader perspective as well as give educators additional ideas for meeting their own and their students’ needs. In this post, I discuss some of these motivational theories and propose an integration of these theories. This discussion is relevant for both teachers and students. If teachers aren’t getting their growth needs met, then it is very difficult for them to help their students get theirs met.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Note: When referencing Maslow, it is important to note and acknowledge that Maslow was heavily influenced by Blackfeet ideas but did not credit them for that influence. For articles that discuss this, see https://elink.io/p/9155b1f.

Every teacher I’ve met has studied Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs so I won’t include any detailed explanation as part of this discussion. As a review, I included some resources that follow:

Source: https://dey.org/applying-maslow-to-schools-a-new-approach-to-school-equity/

Resources:

• Addressing Our Needs: Maslow Comes to Life for Educators and Students https://www.edutopia.org/blog/addressing-our-needs-maslow-hierarchy-lori-desautels
• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in Education – https://educationlibrary.org/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-in-education/

Take-Aways:

Almost all teachers know about Maslow and believe in the validity of this theory. A key point is that there are deficit and growth needs. I believe that most schools do a great job insuring that students’ (and teachers’) deficit needs are met. Most students would say that they aren’t hungry (due to free and reduced programs), have a roof over their heads, enough light, and a chair to sit on. Even though there are still too many exceptions, most would also say that they don’t feel unsafe by peers or teachers. Too many teachers and students, though, would say that school doesn’t address their growth needs; that they don’t spend enough, or even any, time pursuing personal interests and talents.

Willian Glasser’s 5 Basic Needs

---

William Glasser’s theory isn’t studied or discussed as much as it was a decade or two ago. He identified basic motivation needs: Survival, Belonging, Power, Freedom, and Fun. Survival and Belonging are similar to those identified by Maslow but Power, Freedom, and Fun are different and are important in the discussion of student and teacher motivators.

Power: Power is a sense of em­powerment, worthiness, self-efficacy, and achievement, and an outer sense of being heard and respected and feeling competent and attaining recog­nition. Power in a school setting may be defined by the stu­dent’s (and teacher’s) ability to make choices and be an equal contribu­tor in learning. Students (and teachers) want activities to be relevant and to bring them competence and pride.

Freedom: Freedom is the need for independence and autonomy; the ability to make choices, to create, to explore, and to express oneself freely; to have sufficient space, to move around, and to feel unrestricted in determining choices and free will. To achieve this, students (and teachers) need indepen­dence, options, choices, autonomy, and liberty in both physical and psychological aspects. Ideally, it will include having the freedom to create, having time to generate one’s own thoughts, and sharing what’s been have created in the context of learning.

Fun: Fun is the psychological need for enjoyment-the desire to enjoy a job, to have a sense of humor, to engage in a hobby, to have interests, and to feel excitement about a work project or leisure time activity. Having fun includes experiencing enjoyment, pleasure, relaxation, laughter, and learning. In addition, the combination of laughing and learning can maximize the relationship that educators have with students.

(Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249832861_Our_Five_Basic_Needs)

Resources:

• Our 5 Basic Needs – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249832861_Our_Five_Basic_Needs
• Student Needs Survey: A Psychometrically Sound Measure of the Five Basic Needs – https://www.academia.edu/29718966/Student_Needs_Survey_A_Psychometrically_Sound_Measure_of_the_Five_Basic_Needs
• Extra: The Neuroscience of Joyful Education https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-neuroscience-of-joyful-education

McClellands’ Learning Needs Theory

---

Resources:

• Learned Needs Theory and Students – https://educationalresearchtechniques.com/2021/02/03/learned-needs-theory-and-students/
• McClelland’s Three Needs Theory: Power, Achievement, and Affiliation https://educationlibrary.org/mcclellands-three-needs-theory-power-achievement-and-affiliation/

In his research, Mclelland states that people have three primary needs: need for achievement, need for affiliation, and a need for power.

Need For Affiliation: The need for affiliation is a need to have positive social relationships with other people. These are your classic extroverts who love the company of others. Everyone has some need for affiliation, but for many, this is a high need. For people who need affiliation, the task is not essential to them. Instead, people who need affiliation respond to situations in which people depend on them. For students, this can be situations such as group projects and or team sports. Nothing can cripple high affiliated people then isolation. In addition, students who have a low need for affiliation will equally cause issues if they are always expected to socialize and be a part of the group.

Need for Achievement: The need for achievement is how strongly a person wants to have success at completing a task. High-achieving people feel a personal responsibility when they are expected to do something. High achievement people like to take on projects that have a moderate success rate. In other words, high achievement individuals hate something that is too easy but equally loose motivation for suicide tasks that have a low success rate. High achievers also have a desire for feedback. This is because they want to know if they have achieved success.

Need for Power: The need for power is a need to control, which means to influence other people. McClelland indicates two types of power, and these are personal power and social power. Personal power is a power to control others and is often political with a secret agenda. Social power is also seeking to influence others but to achieve the goals of the group or organization (Source: https://educationalresearchtechniques.com/2021/02/03/learned-needs-theory-and-students/) .

Note: Both Glasser and McClelland discuss the power need. Glasser’s explanation and description makes more sense to me in terms of this discussion.

Key Take-Aways from Glasser’s and McClelland’s Theories

There is some overlap of these two theories. Schools often work toward helping students develop a sense of affiliation and belonging especially after the pandemic with a greater focus on implementing social emotional learning. This is less so for power and freedom needs. I love that Glasser included fun. Sadly, way too often there is an emphasis on compliance within schools which is the antithesis of power and freedom – sometimes it is also the antithesis of fun and play.

Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory

---

This is a good overview. It includes a comparison to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Resources:

• Herzberg’s Motivation Two-Factor Theory – https://www.simplypsychology.org/herzbergs-two-factor-theory.html
• Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory: Two-factor https://educationlibrary.org/herzbergs-motivation-hygiene-theory-two-factor/

Frederick Herzberg, a behavioral scientist, proposed a two-factor theory or the motivator-hygiene theory. There are some job factors that result in satisfaction while there are other job factors that prevent dissatisfaction. The opposite of “Satisfaction” is “No satisfaction” and the opposite of “Dissatisfaction” is “No Dissatisfaction.

Hygiene factors are those job factors which are essential for existence of motivation at workplace. These do not lead to positive satisfaction for long-term. But if these factors are absent/if these factors are non-existant at workplace, then they lead to dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors are also called as dissatisfiers or maintenance factors as they are required to avoid dissatisfaction. These factors describe the job environment/scenario. The hygiene factors symbolized the physiological needs which the individuals wanted and expected to be fulfilled. 

The hygiene factors cannot be regarded as motivators. The motivational factors yield positive satisfaction. These factors are inherent to work. These factors motivate the employees for a superior performance.These factors are called satisfiers. These are factors involved in performing the job. Employees find these factors intrinsically rewarding. (Source: https://www.managementstudyguide.com/herzbergs-theory-motivation.htm)

Take Aways:

This theory was developed with a business setting in mind. The two factor model can be applied to a school setting, too. When teachers and students have their survival and safety needs met (Herzberg’s hygiene factors), they may not be dissatisfied with the school but that doesn’t mean they are satisfied it. The goal of every teacher and administrator should be to create motivator-based factors and an environment whereby every teacher and student is motivated to be there and learn; where everyone in the school setting has the potential to be quite satisfied with their roles and jobs.

Student and Teacher Needs Ladder Framework

As someone who has been passionate about and studied human motivation for decades, I propose an integration of these motivational theories. I developed this framework to put a greater emphasis on growth and actualization needs in the school environment. A ladder and steps are used as the metaphor as I prefer a more physical-oriented depiction than a hierarchy or pyramid, which is difficult to impossible to climb. Including both a ladder and steps symbolizes that there are multiple ways to climb to high levels. (Note: This framework is appropriate for grades 2nd/3rd up.)

It has the following characteristics:

1. The overall goal is to intentionally bring self-directed, self=determined, and joyful learning into the school environment.
2. Experiencing as state of flow and student-centered learning are important aspects of motivation and increase as one goes up the ladder of needs. For more about flow, see What did you do in school today? and Flow – A Measure of Student Engagement.
3. The needs ladder is split into safety and growth needs with a greater break down and emphasis on growth needs. I believe as Herzberg does in a two factor model. If student and teacher safety needs are met, then they are not dissatisfied with school but they aren’t satisfied with it either. Schools, as I’ve mentioned, typically do a good job with addressing needs. I believe it is now time to put a greater focus on growth needs so that both teachers and students are motivated, satisfied, and happy with their schools.
4. This differs from Maslow’s model in that teachers and students can and will move up and down the ladder depending on the situation and class setting.

• Basic Survival
  • Students and teachers have a safe physical environment and are fed if they are experiencing food insecurity. When school is unsafe for these students, their motivation is survival on a day-to-day basis.
• Extrinsically-Motivated Compliance
  • Student and teacher needs are centered around avoiding punishment and/or receiving rewards, or because it is the expectation. It might be all both teachers and students know as compliance has been the expectation through their school careers. Motivation is strictly based on extrinsic elements.
• Physically and Emotionally Safe with Peers, Teachers, and Staff
  • Physical safety involves freedom from physical harm or threats of harm; emotional safety refers to freedom from bullying, harassment, and humiliation (A comprehensive approach to promoting social, emotional, and academic growth in contemporary schools).
• Connection to School Community
  • This is the transition from safety needs to growth needs. For some teachers and students, it is solidly a growth need, connection to peers and other school personnel meets core growth needs. For others, it helps to create a safe place but it may not personally meet growth needs.
  • The underlying core need is Affiliation, Love & Belonging – The need for affiliation and to love and belong includes the need for relationships, social connections, to give and receive affection and to feel part of a group.
• Engagement and Excitement
  • Student engagement refers to the degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion that students show when they are learning or being taught, which extends to the level of motivation they have to learn and progress in their education (https://www.edglossary.org/student-engagement/).
  • The core underlying need is Fun. The need for fun is the need to find pleasure, to play and to laugh.
  • There is potential to experience flow and joy.
• Empowerment
  • Empowerment is the “process by which individuals and groups gain power, access to resources and control over their own lives. In doing so, they gain the ability to achieve their highest personal and collective aspirations and goals” (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 1998, p. 91 as cited in What is “empowerment” in education?).
  • The underlying core need is Power. To be powerful is to achieve, to be competent, to be skilled, to be recognized for our achievements and skill, and have a sense of self worth.
  • Empowerment occurs when teachers and students are given choice. John Spencer’s video provides some good suggestion 10 Ways to Empower Students With Choice.
  • A flow state is typically experienced; joy may or may not be present.
• Intrinsically-Motivated Mastery
  • Motivation stems from internal sources – the increased self-esteem, Confidence and recognition that comes from successful performance (Pedagogy, Andragogy, and Heutatgogy – a Continuum and Comparison).
  • The underlying core need is Power. To be powerful is to achieve, to be competent, to be skilled, to be recognized for our achievements and skill, and have a sense of self worth.
  • This can occur through teaching self-directed strategies. It can be mastery of content or of a skill, or in the case of the teacher, learning and successfully teaching new content or skill. It may be interest-driven or not. For example, I have a student who often expresses a disdain for math, yet he prides himself on being able to get correct answers of his math problems.
  • Flow State is evident and observable. Joy may or may not be present and observable.
• Actualization of Interest and Talents
  • Motivation, not only comes from being able to pursue their own interests and develop their own talents, but through developing self-efficacy, knowing how to learn, embracing creativity along with the ability to use these qualities in novel as well as familiar situations and working with others will be he thing that takes place (Pedagogy, Andragogy, and Heutatgogy – a Continuum and Comparison).
  • The core underlying need is Freedom, the need for independence, autonomy, to have choices and to be able to take control of the direction of one’s life while at school.
  • This can be facilitated through self-determined strategies. The goal is not only for students but for teachers whereby they have the permission, space, resources, and time to pursue their own self-determined learning and teaching
  • A flow state and joy are evident and observable, almost palatable.

The higher levels of Intrinsically-Driven Mastery and Actualization of Interests and Talents can be facilitated through self-directed/andragogy and self-determined/heutagogy teaching and learning strategies respectively.

Resources to Learn More About Self-Directed/Andragogy and Self-Determined/Heutagogy Teaching and Learning Strategies

• Experiences in Self-Determined Learning: Moving from Education 1.0 Through Education 2.0 Towards Education 3.0 –https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/experiences-in-self-determined-learning-moving-from-education-1-0-through-education-2-0-towards-education-3-0/
• Self-determined learning: Creating personal learning environments for lifelong Learning – https://www.slideshare.net/lisamarieblaschke/selfdetermined-learning-creating-personal-learning-environments-for-lifelong-learning
• Pedagogy, Andragogy, and Heutatgogy – a Continuum and Comparison

Needs for BIPOC Students

It is important to add to this discussion a special note about addressing the human needs of BIPOC students. Here are some suggestions as identified by BMEsTalk (Black Male Educators):

• Allow what you know about each individual to inform your expectations and attitudes towards them. Who they are as a singular person, as part of their culture, and where they’re at developmentally. See the whole being they are. 
• This is a powerful position to take! Every teacher should desire to become familiar with the experiences of BIPOC students so they’re more aware of the unique challenges they face. As an educator, this knowledge can be shared, and racial equity can be advanced. 
• Give BIPOC students safe and brave spaces to share difficult topics such as racial inequality, bias, and social injustice. You are being invited into a world that is not your own. You can learn so much from your students to further a racially equitable future for them and the students around them. 
• As their current significant influence in their lives, educators should reinforce and redirect the language and conversation to model support for a student sharing their Black or BIPOC experience. When difficult topics arise during class time, you or your students may feel uncomfortable. Lean into the discomfort. Beyond the discomfort lies the opportunity to learn and educate more on these crucial issues. (https://bmestalk.com/social-emotional-learning-for-black-students/)

Reimagining Education: A Call for Action

Many of us have been discussing educational reform for decades. Given the unprecedented time of COVID19 and its effect on education, it is a perfect time to revisit and reimagine the purpose, operations, and skills related to a powerful education. Some of the issues that have emerged and are still emerging include: the social emotional health of learners, a realization that students aren’t able to be independent and self-directed learning, and an awareness of inequities that exist in the United States. It has become blatantly obvious that students can’t learn effectively at home – especially without teacher direction throughout the school day.

It’s a perfect time for educators to reimagine an education they wish they had during their own school years so that their learners can have such an education.

Here is what I propose that should be components of a reformed/re-formed education:

• Self-Determined Learning and Learner Agency
• Learner Voice and Choice
• Just-In-Time Learning
• Whole Person Learning
• Educator as a Tour Guide of Learning Possibilities
• Interest-Based Affinity Groups
• Use of the Learner’s Community
• Vigorous, Authentic Tasks
• Executive Function Skills Development
• A Focus on Social Emotional Health
• Anti-Racist Awareness and Actions

Self-Determined Learning and Learner Agency

Learners of all ages beginning in 2nd or 3rd grade can engage in self-determined and self-driven learning where they are not only deciding the direction of their learning journey, but also producing content that adds value and worth to related content areas and fields of study.

The learners in a self-directed learning environment where learner agency prevails:

• Determine what they want to learn and develop their own learning plan for their learning, based on a broad range of desired outcomes.
• Use their learning preferences and related technologies to decide how they will learn their material based on their own desired outcomes.
• Form their own learning communities possibly using social networking tools suggested and/or set up by the educator. Possible networks, many with corresponding apps, include: Facebook, Twitter, Edmodo, Instagram, TikTok, blogging sites, Youtube, and other social networks.
• Utilize the expertise of educators and other members of their learning communities who can introduce content-related resources and suggest online tools that the learners could use to demonstrate and produce learning artifacts.
• Demonstrate their learning through methods and means that work best for them. It could include blogging, creating photo essays, doing screencasts, making videos or podcasts, drawing, singing, dancing, etc.
• Take the initiative to seek feedback about their work from educators and their peers. It is their choice to utilize that feedback or not.

Learner Choice and Voice

Education works when people have opportunities to find and develop unaccessed or unknown voices and skills. Audre Lorde poignantly describes this “transformation of silence into language and action [as] an act of self-revelation.” Opportunities for flexibility and choice assist learners in finding passion, voice, and revelation through their work. (Student Voice Leads to Student Choice)

Some strategies for giving learners voice and choice can be found in the following infographic:

Just-In-Time Learning

Currently, most schooling focuses on just-in-case teaching and learning. Students are asked to learn material throughout their schooling just-in-case they need it someday. I contend that after students learn the basics of reading, writing, and math, they are asked to learn way too much content that may never use.

Just-in-time learning is a concept that has become popularized in connection to organizational development. “Just-in-time learning is an approach to individual or organizational and development that promotes need-related training be readily available exactly when and how it is needed by the learner” (Just-In-Time Learning).

Kids (and adults) who need to access information in order to learn something or improve their performance – think video gaming, cooking, learning to play an instrument, fixing something, making something – often go directly to the Internet, most notably Youtube, to get some form of tutorial. This is just-in-time learning. Information is needed “then and there,” which motivates the learner to seek that information “then and there.”

In self-directed, interest-driven education, just-in-time learning becomes the norm. The educator, as truly the guide on the side, encourages and assists learners in engaging in just-in-time learning as a natural part of their learning process.

Whole Person Learning

As someone whose roots is in outdoor and experiential education, I believe a good learning experience engages the intellectual, physical, emotional, and social aspects of the learner. The focus becomes on helping educating the whole learner – not just their brain or intellect. Some have called this head, heart, and hand learning.

The 21st century is placing great demands on our students and educational system. To meet those demands, we recognize that educating the head (cognitive domain), exclusive of the heart and hand (affective and behavioral domains), is no longer educational best practice. It is the education of our students’ heads, hearts and hands that will genuinely prepare them for success in college, career and civic life. (Educating the Head, Heart, and Hand for the 21st Century)

Many researchers (Henting, 1997; Bruner, 2000; Stoll and Fink, 2000; Faultisch, 1999) believe, that quality education and successful education reforms can be achieved by changing the learning culture (with attention paid to the completeness and integrativity of a human being), especially in the context of lifelong learning which integrates all three domains of learning: cognitive (head), affective (heart) and psychomotor (hands). (“Head, Heart and Hands Learning”- A challenge for contemporary education)

Obviously to engage the head, heart, and hands, sitting at a desk won’t do it. Simply put, learners needed to move their bodies and have an emotional connection to the material to increase its stickiness.

Educator as the Tour Guide of Learning Possibilities

The educator, in a reformed model of education, steps back to let the learners take over their own personal learning. The educator lets go of expectations what the final produce should be; should look like; should do.  The educator becomes a provider of resources, feedback giver, and communications facilitator. S/he becomes a tour guide of learning possibilities. S/he shows learners the possibilities and then gets out of the way.

he educator’s role truly becomes that of guide-as-the-side, coach, resource-suggester, and cheerleader as learners create their own learning journey. The educator has more life experience, knows (hopefully) about the process of learning, and has more procedural knowledge about how to find, identify, and use informational resources and social networking for learning purposes. Not only, then, does the educator help steer students in some more productive directions, s/he models the process of self-determined learning increasing the students’ aptitude for this type of learning. Learners, themselves, then also become mentors, teachers, and model learning for one another sharing best practices and strategies for effective learning.

Interest-Based Affinity Groups

Young people often find their own interest based affinity groups online. These include kids gathering via Discord or Twitch.tv to discuss video games, marginalized youth finding others like them through social media, and even groups as specific as those who share their art anime with one another for feedback.

Interest-based, affinity groups groups have been described in the report, an agenda for RESEARCH AND DESIGN A research synthesis report of the Connected Learning Research Network:

The primary driver of participation for interest-driven activity is a sense of personal affinity, passion, and engagement. Learning in this mode is generally knowledge and expertise-driven, and evaluated by the metrics internal to the specific interest group, which can often be subcultural or quite different from what is valued by local peers or teachers.

If interest-based affinity groups are promoted in the educational setting, groups will naturally emerge as members interests emerge. They will be fluid as membership changes and members’ interests grow, evolve, and change. The groups would be mixed ages and genders where members act both as learners and as teachers. There would be situational teaching and learning.  This means that if someone has the knowledge or skills related to a certain area of learning, then that member emerges as the teacher regardless of age.  Contributions by all not only make everyone feel valued, the community as a whole will benefit.

The essence of the demand for freedom is the need of conditions which will enable an individual to make his own special contribution to a group interest, and to partake of its activities in such ways that social guidance shall be a matter of his own mental attitude, and not a mere authoritative dictation of his acts.

John Dewey, Education Philosopher in Early 20th Century

Use of the Learner’s Community

Schools tend to be separate from the community – often not physically but in its use of its resources. The educator as a tour guide of learning possibilities assists the learner in locating and utilizing their community including local businesses, museums, parks, social service agencies, historical associations but it can be as simple as the learners going outside to do a science, writing or art project. Learning in the community is a form of place-based learning:

Place-Based Education (PBE) is an approach to learning that takes advantage of geography to create authentic, meaningful and engaging
personalized learning for students. More specifically, Place-Based Education is defined as an immersive learning experience that “places students in local heritage, cultures, landscapes, opportunities and experiences, and uses these as a foundation for the study of language arts, mathematics, social studies, science and other subjects across the curriculum.” (What is Place Based Learning)

For learners new to using their community as part of their learning process, the educator’s responsibility is to assist learners in both navigating through their communities and to identify community resources that can help with their learning process.

Vigorous and Authentic Learning Experiences

Providing authentic and vigorous learning experiences to all learners should be the highest prior for all administrators, curriculum developers, and teachers.

Authentic learning is learning designed to connect what students are taught in school to real-world issues, problems, and applications; learning experiences should mirror the complexities and ambiguities of real life. Students work towards production of discourse, products, and performances that have value or meaning beyond success in school; this is learning by doing approach (Authentic learning: what, why and how?).

In education, the term authentic learning refers to a wide variety of educational and instructional techniques focused on connecting what students are taught in school to real-world issues, problems, and applications. The basic idea is that students are more likely to be interested in what they are learning, more motivated to learn new concepts and skills, and better prepared to succeed in college, careers, and adulthood if what they are learning mirrors real-life contexts, equips them with practical and useful skills, and addresses topics that are relevant and applicable to their lives outside of school. For related discussions, see 21st century skills, relevance, and vigor (Authentic Learning).

The bottom line, in my perspective, is that learners view their experiences as having relevancy to their own lives, that they address their interests and needs. The following graphic shows some of the benefits of authentic and vigorous learning.

Executive Function Skills Development

Most educators would agree that a purpose of education is to assist learners in developing life skills which will translate to their lives outside of the school setting.  These include goal setting, organizational skills, time management, and strategies to learn new things.  They are skills or ability sets that are important for students to learn any content area knowledge.  These are often discussed in the context of executive functions:

In their book, “Executive Skills in Children and Adolescents,” Peg Dawson, EdD and Richard Guare, PhD state “These [executive function] skills help us create a picture or goal, a path to that goal, and the resources we need along the way”(p 2).  They identify 10 types of executive function skills that work together; namely: Sustaining attention, shifting attention, inhibiting impulses, initiating activity, planning and organization, organization of materials, time management, working memory and emotional control http://kooltools4students.weebly.com/at-and-executive-functioning.html

Most young people, themselves, would note there are skills that could assist them in being more successful in both school and out of school settings.   Most would agree that organization skills, goals setting, and time management are relevant to other areas of their lives.

Executive functions and self-regulating skills development should be part of the school curriculum regardless of the age and demographics of the student body.  Using and teaching these skills often have the advantage of becoming intrinsically motivated and self-directed as well as often making sense to students as something that has meaning and relevancy.

Here are some additional resources to assist learners in developing their executive function skills:

• Helping Students Develop Executive Function Skills –https://www.edutopia.org/article/helping-students-develop-executive-function-skills
• Creating an arc of change –https://www.educationdive.com/spons/creating-an-arc-of-change/563293/

A Focus on Social Emotional Learning

It’s not enough to simply fill students’ brains with facts. A successful education demands that their character be developed as well. That’s where social and emotional learning comes in. SEL is the process of helping students develop the skills to manage their emotions, resolve conflict nonviolently, and make responsible decisions.

Research shows that promoting social and emotional skills leads to reduced violence and aggression among children, higher academic achievement, and an improved ability to function in schools and in the workplace. Students who demonstrate respect for others and practice positive interactions, and whose respectful attitudes and productive communication skills are acknowledged and rewarded, are more likely to continue to demonstrate such behavior. Students who feel secure and respected can better apply themselves to learning. (Why Champion Social and Emotional Learning?)

Here are some resources for bringing social emotional learning into the school and into the classroom:

• The CASEL Guide to Schoolwide Social and Emotional Learning – https://schoolguide.casel.org/
• How to Implement Social and Emotional Learning at Your School –https://www.edutopia.org/blog/implement-sel-at-your-school-elias-leverett-duffell-humphrey-stepney-ferrito
• 21 Ways Teachers Can Integrate Social-Emotional Learning –https://www.weareteachers.com/21-simple-ways-to-integrate-social-emotional-learning-throughout-the-day/

Anti-Racism Awareness and Actions

When you’re essentially [teaching] a kid to be anti-racist, you’re deliberately encouraging them to talk about race and Racism. You’re deliberately teaching them that all the racial groups are equals. You’re deliberately showing them, yes, there are different colors and there are different cultures. And we should value them all equally.

It’s important for parents and for educators to be intentional about preparing our young people for the world that they are inheriting and living in. To not talk about it is a disservice to all young people. So not just black students who need to learn about their blackness and their history, but white students as well and nonblack people of color need to know our country’s history and talk explicitly about it.(How Can Parents Make Their Kids Understand How To Be Anti-Racist?)

Some anti-racist learning activities can be found at:

• Anti-Racism Resources – https://www.edantiracism.com/
• Anti-Racism Resources – https://abolitionistteachingnetwork.org/
• Anti-Racist Activities for Upper Elementary and Middle School Students –https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2020/07/12/anti-racist-activities-for-upper-elementary-and-middle-school-students/

Parting Shot

Educational stakeholders such as administrators, educators, parents, and community members might look at this or a similar list of proposed educational reform actions, and say, “This is unrealistic. It can’t be done.” To them I say, “None of you expected the changes that COVID19 would force upon you and your students/children, but you made those changes. Not all have been successful, but most were successful to some degree. It demonstrates, though, that significant change is possible when all stakeholders work together.”

Experiences in Self-Determined Learning: Moving from Education 1.0 Through Education 2.0 Towards Education 3.0

Mrs. Lisa Marie Blaschke, Mr. Chris Kenyon, and Dr. Stewart Hase contacted a group of us due to our interest in heutagogy for the purpose of writing a chapter in an edited book.  This past week, because of their hard work, this book has been published through Amazon.  It is titled Experiences in Self-Determined Learning and can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Experiences-Self-Determined-Learning-L-M-Blaschke/dp/1502785307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417217745&sr=8-1&keywords=Experiences+in+Self-Determined+Learning

What follows is:

• The Book Description
• The Table of Contents
• My Own Chapter: Moving From Education 1.0 Through Education 2.0 Towards Education 3.0

Book Description

Self-determined learning or heutagogy is fast gaining interest from educators around the world interested in an evidence-based approach to learning. Grounded as it is on brain research and extensive research into how people learn self-determined learning is particularly popular among those interested in innovative approaches to learning. This edited book is the perfect primer on self-determined learning or heutagogy. It consists of an introductory chapter explaining the main concepts and principles of this exciting approach to educational practice. This is followed by 16 chapters describing the experience of practitioners in using the approach. These experiences come from a wide variety of interests including school education, higher education, workplace learning, consulting, lifelong learning, training, and community education. Full of links to resources, curated sites,and discussion forums, this is a valuable ‘how to’ book for the interested practitioner and theoretician alike.

Table of Contents

The Basics

• An Introduction to Self-determined Learning (Heutagogy): Stewart Hase
• Heutagogy and Systems Thinking: A Perfect Marriage for Conducting Learning Experiences: Stewart Hase

The Learners

• Embracing Opportunities for Self-Directed Learning in Formal Learning Environments: Bernard Bull
• Moving Forward in the PAH Continuum: Maximizing the Power of the Social Web: Lisa Marie Blaschke
• Assessment as an Ongoing Act of Learning: A Heutagogical Approach: Melanie Booth
• New Pathways to Knowledge and Learning: Rónán O’Beirne
• Moving From Education 1.0 Through Education 2.0 Towards Education 3.0: Jackie Gerstein

The Teachers

• Skills for the Learner and Learning Leader in the 21st Century: Stewart Hase
• Heutagogy and Social Communities of Practice: Will Self-determined Learning Re-write the Script for Educators?: David Price
• Professional Performance Appraisal: From Ticking the Boxes to Heutagogy: Jill Ridden
• Creating Learning Legacies Using Blogs: Robert Schuetz
• Heutagogy and the Impact on Adult Learning in Higher Education: Denise Hexom

The Curriculum

• Cultivating Creative Approaches to Learning: Thomas Cochrane and Vickel Narayan
• From Obstacle to Opportunity: Using Government-mandated Curriculum Change as a Springboard for Changes in Learning and Teaching: Jon Andrews
• One Way of Introducing Heutagogy: Chris Kenyon
• Applying Heutagogy in Online Learning: The SIDE Model: Eric Belt
• Engaging the Wider Community – A Heutagogic Journey Made by a Heutagogic Learner to Develop a Heutagogic Project: Mark Narayan

My Chapter: Moving From Education 1.0 Through Education 2.0 Towards Education 3.0

What follows is my chapter.  For a full picture and understand of Heutagogy, I recommend that you purchase the book.

The evolution of the web from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and now to Web 3.0 can be used a metaphor of how education should also be moving, developing, and evolving from Education 1.0 towards that of an Education 3.0. The Internet has become an integral thread of the tapestries of most societies throughout the globe. The web influences people’s way of thinking, doing and being; and people influence the development and content of the web. The Internet of today has become a huge picture window and portal into human perceptions, thinking, and behavior. Logically, then, we would expect that schools would follow suit in matching what is happening via the Internet to assist children and youth to function, learn, work, and play in a healthy, interactive, and pro-social manner in their societies-at-large. This, sadly, is more often than not the case. Many educators are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning and implementing Education 3.0.

Education 1.0: A Pedagogical, Essentialist Education

Education 1.0 is a type of essentialist, behaviorist education based on the three Rs – receiving by listening to the teacher; responding by taking notes, studying text, and doing worksheets; and regurgitating by taking the same assessments as all other students in the cohort. Learners are seen as receptacles of that knowledge and as receptacles, they have no unique characteristics. All are viewed as the same. It is a standardized/one-size-fits-all education.

Figure X.1. Education 1.0: Learners as Receptacles of Knowledge

Teachers prior to the Internet, as we know it today, were one of the primary gatekeepers of information. Education 1.0 was often the best choice given the resources and technologies of that time in history.   Other than libraries and news outlets, students were dependent on the educator to provide them with information. As such, a major role of the educator, similar to the beginning stages of the web, was to provide students with content knowledge in a one-way, often didactic format.

Education 1.0 can be compared to Web 1.0 where there is a one-way dissemination of knowledge from teacher to student.   Derek W. Keats and J. Philipp Schmidt (2007) provide an excellent comparison of how Education 1.0 is similar to Web 1.0.

Education 1.0 is, like the first generation of the Web, a largely one-way process. Students go to school to get education from teachers, who supply them with information in the form of a stand up routine that may include the use of class notes, handouts, textbooks, videos, and in recent times the World Wide Web. Students are largely consumers of information resources that are delivered to them, and although they may engage in activities based around those resources, those activities are for the most part undertaken in isolation or in isolated local groups. Rarely do the results of those activities contribute back to the information resources that students consume in carrying them out (Keats & Schmidt, 2007, para. 6).

Education 1.0: An Essentialist Philosophy. Education 1.0 can be classified as an essentialism or instructivism teaching and learning philosophical orientation. These educational frameworks or philosophies fit the characteristics of an Education 1.0 or a traditional pedagogical teaching framework.

Essentialism is defined as:

Essentialism tries to instill all students with the most essential or basic academic knowledge and skills and character development. In the essentialist system, students are required to master a set body of information and basic techniques for their grade level before they are promoted to the next higher grade. Essentialists argue that classrooms should be teacher-oriented. The teachers or administrators decide what is most important for the students to learn with little regard to the student interests. The teachers also focus on achievement test scores as a means of evaluating progress (Essentialism, n.d., para. 1).

Instructivism can be described as:

In the instructivist learning theory, knowledge exists independently of the learner, and is transferred to the student by the teacher. As a teacher-centered model, the instructivist view is exhibited by the dispensing of information to the student through the lecture format. This theory requires the student to passively accept information and knowledge as presented by the instructor (Pogue, 2009, para. 2).

The final piece of understanding the philosophical underpinnings of an Education 1.0 is that of pedagogy:

There is little doubt that the most dominant form of instruction in Europe and America is pedagogy, or what some people refer to as didactic, traditional, or teacher-directed approaches. The pedagogical model of instruction was originally developed in the monastic schools of Europe in the Middle Ages. Young boys were received into the monasteries and taught by monks according to a system of instruction that required these children to be obedient, faithful, and efficient servants of the church (Knowles, 1984). In the pedagogical model, the teacher has full responsibility for making decisions about what will be learned, how it will be learned, when it will be learned, and if the material has been learned. Pedagogy, or teacher-directed instruction as it is commonly known, places the student in a submissive role requiring obedience to the teacher’s instructions. It is based on the assumption that learners need to know only what the teacher teaches them (Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990, para. 2-3).

This essentialist, instructivist, pedagogical teaching model is still the most predominant model in current Kindergarten through College public education, even in these modern times of  ubiquitous information and technology. The learner in an essentialist, instructivist, pedagogical learning environment, given 21st century technologies, and through instruction of the teacher may:

• Access information via ebooks and websites, but these often lack any type of interactivity or capabilities for the learner to comment, share, or interact with the content.
• Watch, learn, and take notes from live and/or video lectures that focus on didactic dissemination of content and information.
• Use technologies and mobile apps based on drill and grill where learners are given direction instruction via these technologies and asked to provide the correct answers via quiz questions. (I classify these technologies as worksheets on steroids.)

Figure X.2. Education 1.0 Learning Environment

Education 2.0: An Andragogical, Constructivist Approach to Teaching and Learning

Education 2.0, like Web 2.0, permits interactivity between the content and users, and between users themselves. With Web 2.0, users moved from just accessing information and content to being able to directly interact with the content through commenting, remixing, and sharing it via social networks. Web 2.0 also saw the development of social media which permits users to communicate directly with one another synchronously and asynchronously.

Similar to Web 2.0, Education 2.0 includes more interaction between the teacher and student; student to student; and student to content and expert. Education 2.0 has progressive, humanistic roots where the human element is important to learning. The teacher-to-student and student-to-student relationships are considered as part of the learning process. Education 2.0 focuses on the three Cs – communicating, contributing, and collaborating.

Figure X.3. Education 2.0: Learners as Communicating, Connecting, and Collaboration

Education 2.0 happens when the technologies of Web 2.0 are used to enhance traditional approaches to education. Education 2.0 involves the use of blogs, podcasts, social bookmarking and related participation technologies but the circumstances under which the technologies are used are still largely embedded within the framework of Education 1.0. The process of education itself is not transformed significantly although the groundwork for broader transformation is being laid down (Keats & Schmidt, 2007, para. 7).

Some school administrators and educators have taken steps and moved into a more connected, creative Education 2.0 through using project-based and inquiry learning, cooperative learning, global learning projects, Skype in the classroom, and shared wikis, blogs and other social networking in the classroom. With Education 2.0, the teacher, though, is still the orchestrator of the learning. S/he still develops the learning activities and is the facilitator of learning.

Education 2.0: An Andragogical, Constructivist Approach to Teaching and Learning. Education 2.0 takes on the characteristics of an andragogical, more constructivist teaching orientation where the principles of active, experiential, authentic, relevant, and socially-networked learning experiences are built into the class or course structure. Andragogy has been described for teaching adult learning, but basic principles can be extracted from Andragogy and applied to the teaching of most age groups.

The andragogical model is a process concerned with providing procedures and resources for helping learners acquire information and skills. In this model, the teacher (facilitator, change-agent, consultant) prepares a set of procedures for involving the learners in a process that includes (a) establishing a climate conducive to learning, (b) creating a mechanism for mutual planning, (c) diagnosing the needs of learning, (d) formulating program objectives (content) that will satisfy these needs, (e) designing a pattern of learning experiences, (f) conducting these learning experiences with suitable techniques and materials, and (g) evaluating the learning outcomes and re-diagnosing learning needs (Holmes & Abington-Cooper, 2000, para. 17).

Project-based learning with a focus on authentic, real world problems, networked learning, and use of collaborative digital tools would fit into an Andragogical orientation.

A growing number of educators are heralding the arrival of an era of technology-enhanced PBL. Using educational software and online tools to promote learning is nothing new in most schools. Many teachers remember the days of steering students to educational internet sites and having them present reports in PowerPoint. Now, teachers and students can choose from an ever-expanding cornucopia of digital tools that enable a new level of collaboration, analysis, and presentations (Schachter, 2013, para. 6).

Figure X.4. Education 2.0 Learning Environment

An andragogical, constructivist learning environment typically has the following characteristics:

1. Constructivist learning environments provide multiple representations of reality.
2. These representations represent that complexity of the real world.
3. Knowledge construction is emphasized over knowledge reproduction.
4. Learners participate in authentic tasks in meaningful contexts.
5. Real world settings are provided.
6. Thoughtful reflection on experience is encouraged.
7. Collaboration and social negotiation is encouraged among learners.
8. There’s an integration and activation of prior knowledge.
9. Discovery learning, collaborative activity, and hands-on activities are often integrated into the learning activities. (Abdal-Haqq, 1998; Jonassen, 1994 as cited in Learning Theories/Print Version, n.d)

Education 3.0: A Heutagogical, Connectivist Approach to Teaching and Learning

Web 3.0 is affording us with relevant, interactive and networked content that is freely and readily available and personalized based on individual interests.

Web 3.0 will provide users with richer and more relevant experiences. Many also believe that with Web 3.0, every user will have a unique Internet profile based on that user’s browsing history. Web 3.0 will use this profile to tailor the browsing experience to each individual (Strickland, 2008, para. 15). Web 3.0 will be able to search tags and labels and return the most relevant results back to the user (Strickland, 2008, para. 30).

Education 3.0 is based on this understanding – a personalized, self-determined education. Education 3.0 is self-determined, interest-based learning where problem-solving, innovation, and creativity drive education.

Education 3.0 is characterized by educational opportunities where the learners themselves play a key role as creators of knowledge artifacts that are shared, and where social networking and social benefits play a strong role in learning. The distinction between artifacts, people and process becomes blurred, as do distinctions of space and time. Institutional arrangements, including policies and strategies, change to meet the challenges of opportunities presented. There is an emphasis on learning and teaching processes with the breakdown of boundaries (between teachers and students, institutions, and disciplines (Keats & Schmidt, 2007, para. 9).

Figure X.6: Education 3.0: Learners as Connectors, Creators, Constructivists

Education 3.0 is also about the three Cs but a different set – connectors, creators, constructivists. These are qualitatively different than the three Cs of Education 2.0. Now they are nouns which translates into the art of being a self-determined learner rather than “doing” learning as facilitated by the educator. The learners become the authors, drivers, and assessors of their learning experiences with the educator truly being the guide on the side.

In the absence of a more relevant learning process in schools, our nation’s students increasingly are taking their educational destiny into their own hands and adapting the various tools they use in their personal lives to meet their learning needs and prepare themselves for the future, according to the 2009 Speak Up survey of 300,000 students nationwide. This “free-agent learner” student profile accurately depicts the way many of today’s students are approaching learning. For these students, the school house, the teacher and the textbook no longer have an exclusive monopoly on knowledge, content or even the education process. These students are leveraging a wide range of learning resources, tools, applications, outside experts and each other to create a personalized learning experience that may or may not include what is happening in the classroom   (Project Tomorrow, 2010, p. 1).

Learners already possess many skills related to self-determined learning due to their informal learning experiences interacting with the web. Educators can and should assist learners in transferring these abilities and skills in more formal learning settings. With Education 3.0, the educator’s role truly becomes that of guide-as-the-side, coach, resource-suggester, and cheerleader as learners create their own learning journey. The educator has more life experience, knows (hopefully) about the process of learning, and has more procedural knowledge about how to find, identify, and use informational resources and social networking for learning purposes. Not only, then, does the educator help steer students in some more productive directions, s/he models the process of self-determined learning increasing the students’ aptitude for this type of learning. Learners, themselves, also become mentors, teachers, and model learners for one another sharing best practices and strategies for effective learning.

Education 3.0: A Heutagogical, Connectivist Approach to Teaching and Learning. Education 3.0 is a more of a heutagogical, connectivist approach to teaching and learning. The teachers, learners, networks, connections, media, resources, tools create a unique entity that has the potential to meet individual learners’, educators’, and even societal needs. Education 3.0 recognizes that each educator’s and student’s journey is unique, personalized, and self-determined.

The heutagogical, connectivist orientation is closely aligned with Education 3.0.

In a heutagogical approach to teaching and learning, learners are highly autonomous and self-determined and emphasis is placed on development of learner capacity and capability. The renewed interest in heutagogy is partially due to the ubiquitousness of Web 2.0, and the affordances provided by the technology. With its learner-centered design, Web 2.0 offers an environment that supports a heutagogical approach, most importantly by supporting development of learner-generated content and learner self-directedness in information discovery and in defining the learning path (Blaschke, 2012, p. 56).

Even though heutagogy is usually defined and described for adult learners, given these times where we are living with open education resources and information abundance , learners as young as the elementary level have the potential to engage in educational experiences based on heutagogy.   In other words, they can engage in self-determined and self-driven learning where they are not only deciding the direction of their learning journey but they can also produce content that adds value and worth to the related content area or field of study.

Added to this equation is that this new landscape of learning has created opportunities for deep, broad, and global connections. George Siemens (2004) has defined the characteristics Connectivism:

• Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
• Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
• Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
• Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.
• Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
• Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
• Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision (para. 25).

All of these principles of learning natural lead to Education 3.0. The learners in an Education 3.0, heutagogical, connectivist learning environment:

• Determine what they want to learn and develop their own learning objectives for their learning, based on a broad range of desired course outcomes.
• Use their learning preferences and technologies to decide how they will learn.
• Form their own learning communities possibly using social networking tools suggested and/or set up by the educator. Possible networks, many with corresponding apps, include: Facebook, Twitter, Edmodo, Instagram, Blogging sites, Youtube, and other social networks.
• Utilize the expertise of educators and other members of their learning communities to introduce content-related resources and suggest Web 2.0 and other online tools for that the students could use to demonstrate and produce learning artifacts.
• Demonstrate their learning through methods and means that work best for them. It could include using their mobile devices to blog, create photo essays, do screencasts, make videos or podcasts, draw, sing, dance, etc.
• Take the initiative to seek feedback from educators and their peers. It is their choice to utilize that feedback or not.

Teacher Mindset: Barriers to Change

So given that the that the time is ripe for Education 3.0, that we are in a perfect storm of free and available online resources, tools for creating and sharing information, and networking opportunities, what is stopping administrators and educators from implementing an Education 3.0 approach . . . at least some of the time? Some of the reasons educators profess include: “I don’t have enough time.”; “I don’t have enough resources.”; “I need more training.”; “I need to teach using the textbook.”; “I need to teach to the test.”; “I might lose control of the class.”; “I have always successfully taught this way.”

Figure X.7: Teacher Mindsets: Barriers to change

These are the symptoms, of a fixed mindset, of educators being both learners and teachers in an Education 1.0. Many educators feel forced into this paradigm of teaching. But, in reality, these are external obstacles whereby most of blame for resisting change is placed outside of educator responsibility. The result is a fixed mindset of learned helplessness, “I cannot change because the system won’t let me change.” Sometimes educators are creating some obstacles for themselves that in reality don’t exist. “Talking them into” or insisting on specific changes often creates more and stronger walls of resistance.

Making the Shift from a Fixed to a Growth Mindset

A mental shift occurs when a fixed mindset which often leads to learned helplessness is changed to a growth and positive mindset, believing that there are options; that one can grow, change, and be significant. It becomes focusing on what can work rather than what is not working. This is not to devalue the obstacles that educators face. It becomes about noting where change is possible and making some small changes in teaching. Small changes often result in larger, more systemic change.

Figure X.8. Moving to a Growth Mindset

The bottom line, though, is not is what is in the best interests of the teacher, the administration, or the politicians. It is what is in the best interests of the learner. The student should be central to education – not the content, not the tests, not the standards, not what we think students should know and do. Teachers did not become teachers to teach to the test, to develop practice tests or worksheets, to work with pre-scripted curriculum to meet standards. Teachers became teachers to teach students, first and foremost. The learner needs to be central to all teaching endeavors.

References

Blaschke, L. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 13(1), 56-71. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1076

Essentialism. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.siue.edu/~ptheodo/foundations/essentialism.html.

Gerstein, J. (2013). Schools are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning Education 3.0. Retrieved from https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/schools-are-doing-education-1-0-talking-about-doing-education-2-0-when-they-should-be-planning-education-3-0/ .

Gerstein, J. (2013). Education 3.0: Altering round peg in round hole education. Retrieved from https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/education-3-0-altering-round-peg-in-round-hole-education/ .

Hiemstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Holmes, G., & Abington-Cooper, M. (2000). Pedagogy vs. andragogy: A false dichotomy? Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/Summer-Fall-2000/holmes.html.

Keats, D., & Schmidt, J. (2007). The genesis and emergence of Education 3.0 in higher education and its potential for Africa. First Monday, 12(3). doi:10.5210/fm.v12i3.1625.

Learning Theories/Print version. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_Theories/Print_version

Pogue, L.S. (2009).   Instructivism vs, constructivism. Ezine @rticles. Retrieved from http://EzineArticles.com/1857834.

Project Tomorrow. (2010, March). As schools lose relevancy, students take charge of their own learning. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/Speak_Up_09_March_Release_FINAL.pdf

Schachter, R. (2013, December). Schools embrace project-based learning 2.0. District Administrator. Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com/article/schools-embrace-project-based-learning-20.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.

Strickland, J. (2008, March 8). How web 3.0 will work. HowStuffWorks.com. Retrieved from http://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-30.htm.

Educator as Model Learner

The educator’s role has or should change in this age of information abundance or Education 2.0-3.0. The educator’s role has always been to model and demonstrate effective learning, but somewhere along the line, the major role of the educator became that of content and knowledge disseminator. Now in this information age content is freely and abundantly available, it is more important than ever to assist learners in the process of how to learn.

The world is changing at a rapidly accelerating pace. What you learn today can quickly become outdated. HOW to learn, though, is a skill that lasts a lifetime. When you think about it–it makes sense for us to be taught how to learn before we are taught any specific subject matter. But rarely, if ever, does that happen (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gurbaksh-chahal/learning-how-to-learn-wha_b_4790668.html).

A major role of the educator is or should be to model or demonstrate the hows or processes of learning!

Research has shown that modeling is an effective instructional strategy in that it allows students to observe the teacher’s thought processes. Using this type of instruction, teachers engage students in imitation of particular behaviors that encourage learning (http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/4697).

In some educational arenas, educators are being titled as lead learners to emphasize and model the educator as a learner.

http://webfronter.com/islington/thornhill/menu1/Message_from_the_Lead_Learner/Lead_Learner.html

Significant changes are taking place in our society and cultures, largely driven by the participative and collaborative technologies of the Web. New technologies are re-framing expectations for teaching and learning as well as the importance of helping students “learn how to learn” and become self-directed. Web 2.0 and social media are also providing new opportunities for teachers to not only help shape new learning practices, but to become re-energized learners themselves–and to model that learning in significant ways to students. Steve Hargedon http://www.edjewcon.org/blog/steve-hargadons-closing-keynote-school-2-0-becoming-the-lead-learner/

“Teaching” the process of learning has the following characteristics:

• Modeling of learning processes needs to be intentional, strategic, and overt.
• The educator should be familiar with and able to demonstrate metacognitive processes. “The most effective learners are metacognitive; that is, they are mindful of how they learn, set personal learning goals, regularly self-assess and adjust their performance, and use strategies to support their learning” (http://sites.cdnis.edu.hk/school/ls/2011/05/12/teachers-as-lead-learners/).
• For authenticity purposes, the teacher – lead learner should model learning something s/he previously did not know.
• Technology has changed the way people access and learn information and procedural knowledge, educators should demonstrate how to learn using technology.

This would require several shifts:

• Teacher education would need to devote more time, opportunities, and strategies for pre-service teachers to learn about metacognition, how people learn, and how to model-demonstrate-teach the process of learning.
• The educator, him-herself, would need to develop an attitude of the importance of assisting students how to learn.
• The systems of education would also need to focus on the process of learning as a top priority or skill for students to develop.

Image Credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrsdkrebs/7777942490/

SAMR as a Framework for Moving Towards Education 3.0

Evolution, in its broadest sense, serves as a force to help humans move towards a better way of living given the current times or Zeitgeist.  It follows, then, that the education field should evolve as new opportunities and forces emerge and present themselves. But in general, this is not the case.  From the Time Magazine article, How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20th Century

There’s a dark little joke exchanged by educators with a dissident streak: Rip Van Winkle awakens in the 21st century after a hundred-year snooze and is, of course, utterly bewildered by what he sees. Men and women dash about, talking to small metal devices pinned to their ears. Young people sit at home on sofas, moving miniature athletes around on electronic screens. Older folk defy death and disability with metronomes in their chests and with hips made of metal and plastic. Airports, hospitals, shopping malls–every place Rip goes just baffles him. But when he finally walks into a schoolroom, the old man knows exactly where he is. “This is a school,” he declares. “We used to have these back in 1906. Only now the blackboards are white.”

The evolution of education can be explained from moving from Education 1.0 to Education 3.0.  I have discussed Education 3.0 in several blog posts:

• Schools are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning Education 3.0
• Education 3.0: Altering Round Peg in Round Hole Education
• Education 3.0 and the Pedagogy (Andragogy, Heutagogy) of Mobile Learning

Briefly, Education 1.0, 2.0. and 3.0 is explained as:

Education 1.0 can be likened to Web 1.0 where there is a one-way dissemination of knowledge from teacher to student.  It is a type of essentialist, behaviorist education based on the three Rs – receiving by listening to the teacher; responding by taking notes, studying text, and doing worksheets; and regurgitating by taking standardized tests which in reality is all students taking the same test. Learners are seen as receptacles of that knowledge and as receptacles, they have no unique characteristics.  All are viewed as the same.  It is a standardized/one-size-fits-all education.

Similar to Web 2.0, Education 2.0 includes more interaction between the teacher and student; student to student; and student to content/expert.  Education 2.0, like Web 2.0, permits interactivity between the content and users, and between users themselves.  Education 2.0 has progressive roots where the human element is important to learning.  The teacher-to-student and student-to-student relationships are considered as part of the learning process.  It focuses on the three Cs – communicating, contributing, and collaborating.

Education 3.0 is based on the belief that content is freely and readily available as is characteristic of Web 3.0. It is self-directed, interest-based learning where problem-solving, innovation and creativity drive education. Education 3.0 is also about the three Cs but a different set – connectors, creators, constructivists.  These are qualitatively different than the three Cs of Education 2.0.  Now they are nouns which translates into the art of being a self-directed learner rather than doing learning as facilitated by the educator. Education 3.0: Altering Round Peg in Round Hole Education

Emerging technologies is, can be, should be a driving force of this evolution towards Education 3.0.  Information access, communication methods, the ability for creative express is qualitatively different than any other time in history due to technological advances.

The SAMR model was developed by as a framework to integrate technology into the curriculum.  I believe it can also serve as a model to establish and assess if and how technology is being used to reinforce an old, often archaic Education 1.0 or being used to promote and facilitate what many are calling 21st century skills, i.e., creativity, innovation, problem-solving, critical thinking; those skills characteristic of Education 3.0.  Many look at SAMR as the stages of technology integration.  I propose that it should be a model for educators to focus on Modification and Redefinition areas of technology integration.  Why should educators spend their time recreating Education 1.0 using technology at the substitution and augmentation levels when there are tools, techniques, and opportunities to modify and redefine technology integration for a richer, more engaging Education 2.0 or 3.0?

The following chart provides an overview of the ideas discussed in this post.

Slides from a presentation given on this topic:

The Other 21st Century Skills: Books for Kids

I have been discussing and blogging about The Other 21st Century Skills

Many have attempted to identify the skills important for a learner today in this era of the 21st century (I know it is an overused phrase).  I have an affinity towards the skills identified by Tony Wagner:

• Critical thinking and problem-solving
• Collaboration across networks and leading by influence
• Agility and adaptability
• Initiative and entrepreneurialism
• Effective oral and written communication
• Accessing and analyzing information
• Curiosity and imagination   http://www.tonywagner.com/7-survival-skills

Some other ones that I believe important based on what I hear at conferences, read via blogs and other social networks include:

• Grit
• Resilience
• Hope and Optimism
• Vision
• Self-Regulation
• Empathy and Global Stewardship

This post lists children’s books to help teach children and youth about these concepts.  Some are even appropriate and applicable for adults. Children’s books, as they are written and presented as stories, have great potential to explain these often abstract concepts.  There is also evidence that the brain processes stories differently and more powerfully than facts and lectures.  I discuss this in Storytelling Is Not Lecturing; Lecturing is Not Storytelling

Stories are different. Stories have everything that facts wish they had but never will: color, action, characters, sights, smells, sounds, emotions–stuff that we can easily relate to. We can imagine ourselves doing, or not doing, or having already done, what the story describes. Stories put facts into a meaningful, and therefore memorable, context.  (http://www.forbes.com/sites/douglasmerrill/2013/03/08/a-story-about-stories/)

Brain Activity: Lecture versus Storytelling

It’s in fact quite simple. If we listen to a powerpoint presentation with boring bullet points, a certain part in the brain gets activated. Scientists call this Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area. Overall, it hits our language processing parts in the brain, where we decode words into meaning. And that’s it, nothing else happens.

When we are being told a story, things change dramatically. Not only are the language processing parts in our brain activated, but any other area in our brain that we would use when experiencing the events of the story are too.  (http://lifehacker.com/5965703/the-science-of-storytelling-why-telling-a-story-is-the-most-powerful-way-to-activate-our-brains)

Here is the list categorized by the skill or attribute:

Grit

• The Little Engine That Could by Walter Piper
• Horton Hatches an Egg by Dr. Seuss
• The Dot by Peter Reynolds
• Amazing Grace by Mary Hoffman
• Wilma Unlimited by Kathleen Krull

Resilience

• Oh, The Places You Will Go by Dr. Seuss
• Stand Tall, Molly Lou Melon by Patty Lovell
• Zagazoo by Quentin Blake
• Giraffes Can’t Dance by Giles Andreae

Hope and Optimism

• The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupery
• On That Day: A Book of Hope for Children by Andrea Patel
• The Little Hope Book
• When Pigs Fly by June Rae Wood
• Mister Magnolia by Quentin Blake
• Live Now: Artful Messages of Hope, Happiness & Healing by Eric Smith (not quite a children’s book)

Vision

• Snowflake Bentley by Jacqueline Briggs Martin
• Ruby’s Wish by Shirin Yim
• Amazing Grace by Mary Hoffman
• Salt in His Shoes: Michael Jordan in Pursuit of a Dream by Deloris Jordan
• Possum Magic by Mem Fox

Self-Regulation

• My Mouth Is a Volcano by Julia Cook
• Lilly’s Purple Plastic Purse  by Kevin Henkes
• When Sophie Gets Angry—Really, Really Angry… by Molly Bang
• I Lost My Bear by Jules Feiffer

Empathy and Global Awareness

• Stand in My Shoes: Kids Learning About Empathy by Bob Tomson
• Is There Really a Human Race? by Jamie Lee Curtis
• The Hating Book by Charlotte Zolotow
• One Day and One Amazing Morning on Orange Street by Joann Rocklin

The entire list can be found on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/lm/R2VU5OSVB73GOX/ref=cm_lm_pthnk_view?ie=UTF8&lm_bb=

Here are some suggestions for a few of the skills identified by Tony Wagner:

Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

• I’m Lost by Elizabeth Crary
• Mollie’s Magic by Penelope C. Paine

Collaboration

• Swimmy by Leo Lionni
• The Enormous Potato by Aubrey Davis
• Stone Soup by Jon Muth

Curiosity and Imagination

• The Big Orange Splot by D. Manus Pinkwater

Education Reform with Jackie Gerstein

I was excited to have Sieva Kozinsky from Study Soup contact me to discuss my views about educational reform.  I appreciate his style of interviewing and his write-up/posting of the interview and the highlights.  As such, I am reblogging it from http://studysoup.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/education-reform-with-jackie-gerstein/.

Note:  It is really difficult for me to watch and listen to myself as well as put myself out there like this but I promote educators using their voice for reform.  This is a way to practice what I preach.

Education Reform with Jackie Gerstein

Time is precious, and school is stealing time away from our students.

Our guest today is Jackie Gerstein, Boise State, Walden, Western Governors, and American InterContinental Adjunct Professor and founder of User Generated Education. She has also produced over three dozen Slideshare presentations outlining her views on the student driven classroom. In this talk, Jackie highlights the role of the teacher in the new age classroom, as well as her summary of education 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0.

Her MOTTO is:

I don’t do teaching for a living, I live teaching as my doing, and technology has AMPLIFIED my passion.

WATCH HERE:

Noteworthy moments you should pay attention to:

6:05 – Summary of education 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0.

8:40 – A teacher’s role is no longer to provide information or content. The role of a new age teacher to provide expertise in the process.

14:50 – Become a connected educator, get on Twitter!

10:05 – Jackie discusses her point of view on teacher agency. There are a lot of choices out there, but also a lot of restrictions. What can teachers do? Stand up for your freedom as an educator, and become a connected learner!

17:00 – All of your students should be blogging, creating and engaging in the learning process.

Mentions of Technology

• Twitter – It’s a teacher’s responsibility to be a connected educator, which is the first step towards student driven learning.
• Worpress.com and Tumblr.com – Free blogging platform for students.
• Minecraft – A social building game.

You can reach Jackie Gerstein on Twitter @jackiegerstein and on her website.

I’m a big fan of her Slideshare on education 3.0 as seen below.

Maker Education: A “Good” 2013-14 Educational Trend

In the midst of the implementation of common core state standards and no relief in sight from all the standardized testing, there’s been a breadth of fresh air in the form of maker education entering into many classrooms.  The Maker Movement is not easily defined nor placed neatly into a nice little box.  It can be high tech or low tech; hacking what is or creating from scratch; it can be creating from building and arts materials or creating on the computer.  We have entered into a convergence of several factors that are igniting the maker education movement.

The rise of maker culture has been slowly bubbling out of sheds, science labs, tech workshops, in schools and learning spaces. But, suddenly it is very present. The Imagination Foundation that has emerged out of energy and excitement of Caine’s Arcade is raising funds and investing in projects that support maker activities in education. The New Maker Education Initiative, backed by a range of organizations including Intel and Pixar, has just launched its first project called Maker Corps.  There are initiatives like the Make2Learn which aims to “leverage DIY culture, digital practices, and educational research to advocate for placing making, creating, and designing at the core of educational practice”. Makers and Teachers Unite!

Some maker-related educational movements that gained traction in 2013 and will most likely gain more momentum in 2014 include:

• A focus on STEM (science, technology, education, and mathematics) and STEAM (science technology, engineering, arts, mathematics):

At a time when many people are asking how we can get more students interested in STEM fields, we are hearing from teachers who have found making to be a great way to get students excited and engaged in their classrooms. We are seeing making occurring in subject classes such as math or science — in classes specifically listed as maker classes — and in a variety of less formal settings such as clubs and study halls. Many of these projects incorporate a variety of STEM topics. (Engaging Students in the STEM Classroom Through “Making”)

• Economical, open source, and accessible robotics and electronics tools like Arduino, Rasberry Pi, Makey-Makey, Little Bits:

New open-source microcontrollers, sensors, and interfaces connect the physical and digital worlds in ways never before possible. Plug-and-play devices that connect small microprocessors to the Internet, to each other, or to any number of sensors mean that low-cost, easy-to-make computational devices can test, monitor, and control your world. They offer much more than just “hands-on” crafting—these tools bring electronics, programming, and computational mathematics together in meaningful, powerful ways. We must reimagine school science and math not as a way to prepare students for the next academic challenge, or a future career, but as a place where students are inventors, scientists, and mathematicians today. (How the Maker Movement is Transforming Education)

• The growing popularity of online game making and hacking platforms like Scratch and Minecraft:

Think of the Maker Movement as DIY for technology. It’s not just a passing fad – web tools like KidsRuby, Gamemaker, Scratch, Storify and Mozilla Webmaker make it possible for people of all ages to learn to code, build games, and re-mix media. For libraries and schools, the Maker Movement means new opportunities for promoting digital, media, visual, and critical literacies (21st century literacies). (Inanimate Alice and the Maker Movement)

• An interest in and focus on design thinking both in educational and corporate sectors:

Making is a way of bringing creativity, authentic design thinking, and engineering to learners. Tinkering is the process of design, the way real scientists and engineers invent new things. Such concrete experiences provide a meaningful context for understanding abstract science and math concepts while often incorporating esthetic components. Creating opportunities for students to solve real problems, combined with imaginative new materials and technology, makes learning come alive and cements understandings that are difficult when only studied in the abstract. (Why we’re excited about the Maker Movement, maybe you should be too!)

• Consumer affordable 3D Printers along with open sharing of 3D printer designs:

3D Printing is one of the most disruptive technologies around. These printers are affordable, personal fabrication tools, compact enough to sit on any desktop, and allow anyone at any skill level to become producers, inventors and artists. Students participate in project-based learning that is experiential in nature and has real-world applications.  3D printing projects engage students in the world around them, kindles a curiosity about how machines work, how objects fit together, and how the designers, architects, and inventors who build the products, spaces and technology in their lives have found solutions to a variety of design problems.  (Makerbot Curriculum)

• Global making initiatives like the Cardboard Challenge:

The goals of Imagination Foundation, who sponsors, the Cardboard Challenge is in line with many Maker Education Initiatives:

1. Instill Creative Thinking as a Core Skill and Social Value
Give kids the tools to develop as creative thinkers who can take on the jobs of the future, seek innovative and resourceful solutions, tackle social issues and find happiness.

2. Give Kids Opportunities to Create and Learn Based on their Passions
Help children find and develop their passions through play, hands-on learning and supportive communities. Design scalable Project-Based Learning programs that can be used by a wide range of communities.

3. Foster a Community of Creative Makers
Develop an engaged community (local and global) of young makers, parents, storytellers and educators who can share with, learn from, and inspire one another.  (Goals of the Imagination Foundation)

• The emphasis on 21st century skills which include crit, creativity, innovation:

Common Core and the new Next Generation Science Standards emphasize critical thinking, creativity, and 21st century skills. To achieve these goals requires taking a hard look at both what we teach and how we teach it. The Maker Movement offers lessons, tools, and technology to steer a new course to more relevant, engaging learning experiences for all students. (Lessons from the Maker Movement for K-12 Educators)

Technology and the related movements as discussed above have amplified the human desire to create, innovate, share, learn from one another, and have an authentic audience.  What was once reserved for those with special skills and often lots of money is now accessible to the masses.  Maker education stems from developments related to Web 3.0 and the evovling Education 3.0 – which is characterized by learners being creators, contributors, connectors, and constructivists.  This is the type of education many of this generation are embracing often, sadly, in their “beyond school” learning.

These movements, initiatives, technological advancements show no signs of slowing down in the future and hopefully, will change education to better meet the needs, desires, interests, and passions of both educators and learners. Maker education has become a grassroots movement of informal learning as so many are craving and embracing this type of learning.  Just maybe, with educators and learners taking the initiative, these developments will work their way into more formal educational settings.

The maker movement has the opportunity to transform education by inviting students to be something other than consumers of education. They can become makers and creators of their own educational lives, moving from being directed to do something to becoming self-directed and independent learners. Increasingly, they can take advantage of new tools for creative expression and for exploring the real world around them. They can be active participants in constructing a new kind of education for the 21^st-century, which will promote the creativity and critical thinking we say we value in people like Steve Jobs. Learning by Making: American kids should be building rockets and robots, not taking standardized tests by Dale Dougherty, founder, President & CEO of Maker Media, Inc.

Other posts on the Maker Movement:

• STEAM and Maker Education: Inclusive, Engaging, Self-Differentiating
• Is It Project-Based Learning, Maker Education or Just Projects?
• The Flipped Classroom: The Full Picture for Tinkering and Maker Education

Education 3.0: eBook of Blog Posts

What follows is an ebook compilation of blog posts I wrote about Education 3.0:

• Education 3.0: Altering Round Peg in Round Hole Education
• Education 3.0 and the Pedagogy (Andragogy, Heutagogy) of Mobile Learning
• Schools are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning Education 3.0

Process to create eBook from blog posts and then embed it into a WordPress.com blog post:

• Located the URL for my blog with posts tagged with Education 3.0.
• Used that URL Blogsmith – Blogs to Books for http://blog2book.pothi.com/
• Downloaded it as a PDF
• Uploaded the PDF to Issuu.
• Embedded Issuu into WordPress using the directions from http://wpbtips.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/inserting-issuu-docs/

Education 3.0: Altering Round Peg in Round Hole Education

What follows is my Ignite talk for ISTE 2013.  It was rejected by the selection committee.  As I already conceptualized the talk and think it is such an important topic, I am disseminating my text and slides via my blog and Slideshare.  First, Education 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 are described.  Later, I discuss the consequences of Education 1.0 vs Education 3.0 on learners (and educators!) especially those that do not fit the mold of Education 1.0.

Education 1.0 can be likened to Web 1.0 where there is a one-way dissemination of knowledge from teacher to student.  It is a type of essentialist, behaviorist education based on the three Rs – receiving by listening to the teacher; responding by taking notes, studying text, and doing worksheets; and regurgitating by taking standardized tests which in reality is all students taking the same test. Learners are seen as receptacles of that knowledge and as receptacles, they have no unique characteristics.  All are viewed as the same.  It is a standardized/one-size-fits-all education.

Derek W. Keats and J. Philipp Schmidt provide an excellent comparison of how Education 1.0 is similar to Web 1.0.

Education 1.0 is, like the first generation of the Web, a largely one-way process. Students go to school to get education from teachers, who supply them with information in the form of a stand up routine that may include the use of class notes, handouts, textbooks, videos, and in recent times the World Wide Web. Students are largely consumers of information resources that are delivered to them, and although they may engage in activities based around those resources, those activities are for the most part undertaken in isolation or in isolated local groups. Rarely do the results of those activities contribute back to the information resources that students consume in carrying them out. (http://p2pfoundation.net/Education_3.0)

Similar to Web 2.0, Education 2.0 includes more interaction between the teacher and student; student to student; and student to content/expert.  Education 2.0, like Web 2.0, permits interactivity between the content and users, and between users themselves.  Education 2.0 has progressive roots where the human element is important to learning.  The teacher-to-student and student-to-student relationships are considered as part of the learning process.  It focuses on the three Cs – communicating, contributing, and collaborating.

Some school administrators and educators seem to have taken steps and moved into a more connected, creative Education 2.0 through using project-based and inquiry learning, cooperative learning, global learning projects, Skype in the classroom, and shared wikis, blogs and other social networking in the classroom.  But in 2013, this should be the norm not the exception.

Education 3.0 is based on the belief that content is freely and readily available as is characteristic of Web 3.0. It is self-directed, interest-based learning where problem-solving, innovation and creativity drive education. Education 3.0 is also about the three Cs but a different set – connectors, creators, constructivists.  These are qualitatively different than the three Cs of Education 2.0.  Now they are nouns which translates into the art of being a self-directed learner rather than doing learning as facilitated by the educator.

Education 3.0 is characterized by educational opportunities where the learners themselves play a key role as creators of knowledge artifacts that are shared, and where social networking and social benefits play a strong role. The distinction between artifacts, people and process becomes blurred, as do distinctions of space and time. Institutional arrangements, including policies and strategies, change to meet the challenges of opportunities presented. There is an emphasis on learning and teaching processes with the breakdown of boundaries (between teachers and students, institutions, and disciplines (http://p2pfoundation.net/Education_3.0).

Education 3.0 is a constructivist, heutagogical approach to teaching and learning.  The teachers, learners, networks, connections, media, resources, tools create a a unique entity that has the potential to meet individual learners’, educators’, and even societal needs.  Education 3.0 recognizes that each educator’s and student’s journey is unique, personalized, and self-determined. https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/learning-on-the-edge/

So given that the that the time is ripe for Education 3.0, that we are in a perfect storm of free and available online resources, tools for creating and sharing information, and networking opportunities, what is stopping administrators and educators from implementing an Education 3.0 . . . at least some of the time?  Some of the reasons educators profess include: “I don’t have enough time.”, “I don’t have enough resources.”, “I need more training.”, “I need to teach using the textbook.” ,”I need to teach to the test.”, “I might lose control of the class.”, “I have always successful taught this way.”

These are the symptoms of Education 1.0. Many educators feel forced into this paradigm of teaching with dire consequences to both their and their students attitudes toward education.  But these are external obstacles whereby most of blame for resisting change is placed outside of educator responsibility. The result is a fixed mindset of learned helplessness, “I cannot change because the system won’t let me change.”  Sometimes educators are creating some obstacles for themselves that in reality don’t exist. “Talking them into” or insisting on specific changes often creates more and stronger walls of resistance.

A mental shift occurs when a fixed mindset which often leads to learned helplessness is changed to a growth and positive mindset, believing that there are options; that one can grow, change, and be significant.  It becomes focusing on what can work rather than what is not working.  This is not to devalue the obstacles that teachers face. It becomes about noting where change is possible and making some small changes in teaching.  Small changes often result in larger, more systemic change.

The bottom line, though, is not is what is in the best interests of the teacher, the administration, the politicians.  It is what is in the best interests of the learner.  The student should be central to education – not the content, not the tests, not the standards, not what we think students should know and do.  Teachers did not become teachers to teach to the test, to develop practice tests or worksheets, to work with pre-scripted curriculum to meet standards.  Teachers became teachers to teach students, first and foremost.  The learner needs to be central to all teaching endeavors.

So what are the consequences of a standards-driven Education 1.0 on the learner?  Education 1.0 for many students results boredom, a wasting away of their time and sometimes their minds.  But there are bigger consequences than boredom. There are especially dire consequences for learners with oddly shaped minds.  This is not meant to be derogatory.  It just means that they see, think, hear, visualize, imagine the world a little differently than others.

In a system of Education 1.0, they are often seen as irregularly shaped pegs.  The system doesn’t like oddly shaped pegs as oddly shaped pegs don’t adapt well to standardized.  They don’t fit into any type of round or even square holes.  Way too often, they system attempts to whittle away at them trying to get them to fit.  The system whittles and whittles away at them until nothing may be left.

I am a lifelong survivor, seeking continual recovery from Education 1.0.  I was different, that oddly shaped peg.  Because I called out answers, questioned the content I was learning, spoke to classmates when something interested me, didn’t want to take multiple choice tests; I was yelled at, punished, kicked out of class, physically hit, embarrassed in front of peers.  The damage done to me has left an indelible, lifelong legacy that I am odd, weird, not good enough.

Education should, at least, have the same standards as the medical field, “First, do no harm.”  This is the minimal standard that should be practiced.  Optimally, it should be about providing an individualized, personalized, engaging, passion-driven education that is characterized by an Education 3.0.  This is ethically the right thing to do.

I put every kind of metaphor I could think of on this slide.  Educators should assist students in catching dreams; finding their pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, being on cloud nine, reaching the top of the peak.  What kind of educator do you want to be?  A whittler or a dream-facilitator?  You have a choice.  You really do.

Do you want a student of yours in the future to stand on a stage like this and talk about the damage done to him or her due to your behavior or do you want him or her to talk about your being the teacher who made a difference?  What type of legacy do you want to leave in the world?