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)

This entry is specifically for the Inevitable Book Study Group, but the question and our response can be generalized.

Three of the ten questions we received had to do with “what do we do with the unmotivated learner?” Tis a good question and one that we get when we present the MCL vision to practitioners. We have chosen a stair-step approach to our response . . . that is, our points tend to be stacked on each other to reach our final conclusion. SO, we will number our points.

1. We believe (as do most educators with whom we work) that a desire to learn is the natural state of people . . . young and old. So the problem with learner motivation is not about the learner, but with a system that is not designed to motivate/engage the learner.

2. Learning is natural and rather easy when we are intrinsically motivated. However, schools are designed to control the learner with the use of extrinsic. rewards . . . the most obvious extrinsic reward/punishment is our ABC grading system. When the reward is stopped, the compliant behavior is also expected to stop. In short, we buy kids off to get compliance with extrinsic rewards. (Not blaming anyone here . . . that’s just the way it is. This is how schools have been designed and operated for more than 100 years.)

3. So what are those intrinsic motivators that MCL allows us to apply? We believe that there are three big ones. One, we are motivated to learn when what we are being asked to learn meets our learning level. That is, when we have the “prerequisite learnings” as Madeline Hunter taught us; when we are challenged but also believe that we have a good opportunity to be successful. MCL not only allows this intrinsic motivator, but encourages it – our present assembly line does not. Two, we are motivated when we are able to apply our most effective learning style. MCL allows and encourages this intrinsic motivator – our present delivery of instruction is typically a one-size-fits-all approach. Three, we are intrinsically motivated when we are learning via content that is of interest of us. MCL makes this motivator available – our present system does not.

4. We think that it is a bit unfair to think of how an unmotivated learner would react to MCL if he/she were asked to take responsibility for his/her own learning at age 15. But what if each learner would be introduced to MCL sometime in the early grades. Our experience is that the intrinsic motivators leave our system and our learners around the fourth or fifth grade, and students are conditioned to expect to run on extrinsic rewards/punishments.

5. Nearly every school system with which we have worked has a stated goal of “creating self-directed life-long learners.” How can we be true to that very worthy goal without consciously and intentionally working to make that goal a reality? Telling students what they must do until they graduate to get the rewards certainly cannot be considered a reasonable strategy.

6. But the bottom line regarding learner maturity necessary to function as a motivated learner is that MCL allows the system to structure each learner’s activities according to his/her ability and willingness to take responsibility. We assume you have read Chapter 7, Lori Does Her Learning Plan. That chapter may appear idealistic, but we don’t think so. We believe that if we begin early and focus on the intrinsic motivators, a majority of our learners would/could be responsible for planning their own learning . . . some with more help than others. A “for . . . instance” – Lori was able to do her online learning from anywhere. Were she not responsible and be making acceptable progress, her online learning would take place in a supervised computer lab. Immature learners might meet with their learning coach daily, while the mature learners may meet with their coach once every week or two.

In the spirit of fairness, we are fully aware of how good teachers . . . and that’s most of them . . . bootleg intrinsic motivators into their classrooms all the time. But they do so in spite of the structure of the Industrial Age assembly line, not because of it. These teachers are our heroes and heroines.

The question is a good one. Thanks for sticking with us for a rather lengthy answer. We look forward to talking with you on March 14 when we suspect you will have questions about our answer. (cjs & bmcg)