We have come to realize that some MCL advocates are interpreting our vision about how systems can/will meet the learning style needs of every learner in a more complex manner than we intended. And this may be a good thing. This note is not about telling anyone to “shape up,” but rather to inform you of our intent when we were “visioning” and writing.

When we were writing, dreaming, and visioning, we were part dreamers, but also part pragmatists. We wanted our MCL vision to be very desirable but, at the same time, wanted the MCL to be doable . . . doable as perceived by our readers and especially doable as perceived by school leaders and teachers.

How is this learner outcome best learned?

We think that one of the major contributions of Inevitable is to be learner focused when determining how learning opportunities are created and made available to learners. We suggest that, for each learner outcome (LO), educators think “how is this LO best learned rather than the typical response of “how should we teach this LO.”

How is this LO best learned options

Chapter 9, Ready For Rollout, Critical Element #3, states that school systems, “Have categorized Learning Outcomes by learning format.” We thought/think that this task is best approached by first identifying which learner outcomes can be best learned via online learning. In fact, we were thinking of the need to first divide LOs into only two categories, those learned best (most efficiently and effectively) online and those LOs learned best in some other format.

Our/the rationale for this approach was pragmatic inasmuch as we believe that the more we can use technology to help learners demonstrate LOs, the more time teachers will have to teach those LOs that require interaction, hands-on approaches, coaching, etc. An interesting note here – when we ask groups to estimate what percentage of LOs can be best learned online, we get answers that typically range from 50% to 75%. Elementary teachers are usually in the lower range here and HS teachers are at the higher range.

Chapter 9 then suggests some options for those LOs that require formats other than online learning . . . e.g. seminars, projects, mentoring, etc.

The “Rub”

The “rub,” or the conflict (and it may be a good conflict) comes at this point, and it comes with the interpretation of the “meeting the learning style of each learner.” So here comes the pragmatic, secondary principal in our thinking! Do we suggest that each learner will be given learning style choices about each LO that does not fit into the online learning category, or do we suggest that there will be a “best way” for all/most learners to learn to demonstrate those LOs.

The complexity created by expecting a number of options for each LO outcome that falls outside on the online leaning category, is great . . . e. g., technology might be able to schedule 5 ways of learning to “write and defend a business plan,” but actually making each of those options available to each learner would be near impossible.

So, in short, when we said that each learner will have his/her learning style met, we were expecting that that would entail each learner being presented with the “how is this LO best learned option.” We continue to believe that customizing to this point would be doable (and probably preferable, but that needs discussion).

And further, there is a big difference between how a secondary principal schedules a learning opportunity (those that are not “best learned” online) and how a Learning Facilitator team actually delivers that learning opportunity. E.g., the master schedule groups learners for the Business Plan LO, but when the group comes together, the Learning Facilitators do their thing by personalizing that learner outcome to meet the learning styles and learner interests. Some will use the Internet for gathering info, some will have conversations with a banker, some will learn from their Mom, etc.

So, as we think about it now, we can have the best of both worlds if we group according to “how is this LO best learned” for those LOs not learned best online, and expect that the learning facilitators will provide options once the learners walk through their door . . . or meet at the bank conference room. We think that this win-win first focuses on the learner but, in turn, also considers the pragmatic needs of the system and the system leadership.

We don’t expect this communication to be a final word, but we hope that it frames a discussion of the topic for further clarification . . . and maybe even for some decisions. (cjs and bmc)