Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Reading with BHH. Book. Head. Heart.


I love Kylene Beers and Bob Probst. I love the way they write. I love what they write. I love them and yes, I'm privileged to know them. I'd love to hang out with them pretty much any time.

All of their books are useful and insightful, infused with that Beers/Probst humor. Their Notice and Note books are amazing but I want to talk about Disrupting Thinking: Why How We Read Matters.

Herewith some highlights and observations although it will be much, much, MUCH better for you to just get the book and read it. In fact, use it as a book study with your colleagues. Follow Kylene (@kylenebeers) and Bob (@BobProbst) on Twitter. It's entirely possible Kylene and/or Bob will agree to Skype in to talk with you and your colleagues about the book.
Too often, the right book created a compliant one-book-at-a-time reader, that kid who will willingly read the book we promise him he will enjoy. And yet, he doesn’t become the committed reader who searches on his own for the next great book.

And then we wondered if we were trying to solve the wrong problem. . . . Perhaps what was missing was helping students have the right mindset while reading. Once we reframed the problem, we began to understand why how kids read matters so very much (p. 17)
I was in a school library last year when kids were trying to finish all of their AR requirements. Kids were looking for books with the right colored dots. A few kids had finished their AR requirements and were looking for books to read for fun. For fun! Elementary students!! The library staff was making all kinds of great recommendations (that I was writing down for my own reading stacks). What was particularly fun was how enthusiastic the librarians were as they were describing the books they were recommending. Some of the books were not the right color dot, and the librarians would encourage the students to give the book a try. Calloo! Callay!

Students learn to extract information from texts and most of the work they do is about extraction. The following quote reminds us of the importance of flexible thinkers, which is often a challenge to the way we tend to want to do things in our classrooms.
We would argue that in today's world, learning to extract information is not enough. It's not enough to hold a reader's interest and it's not enough to solve our complex problems. . . . [Students] need to be flexible thinkers who recognize that there will rarely be one correct answer, but instead there will be multiple answers that must be weighed and evaluated (p. 21) 
I'd never thought much about a reader's responsibility to the text, but this section of the book was eye-opening. Beers and Probst state "While we, of course, want students who pay attention to what's in the text, we know that the most responsible reading requires that students pay attention to their own responses, their own thoughts, their own reactions" (p. 31).

Please note the emphasis on the word "own." Reading teachers like to talk about making connections: text-to-text, text-to-self, text-to-world. I remember startling a group of students by asking them what they didn't like about a story. When they were reluctant to answer (it probably felt like a trick question), I told them one of the things I didn't like about the story. Small light bulbs exploded as they began to realize that part of reading is recognizing what they like, how they connect, and, yes, what they don't like.

Heidi Weber sketchnote (p. 37)
If you're familiar with the Notice & Note books, you're familiar with the three big questions: What surprised me? What did the author think I already knew? What changed, challenged, or confirmed my thinking?

These questions assist students in their process of becoming responsible readers. These questions provide a means for expressing text-to-self and, quite possibly, text-to-text and/or text-to-world. But that's not the whole point. These questions also help students begin to think about what affects them, and why.

I'm going to fast forward a bit to the BHH part; otherwise, we'll be here all day.

I really, REALLY wish I had a recording of Kylene reading this part of the book and I'm going to quote from the text at length because it gives you insight into how they came to the BBH framework.
Our experiment with getting kids to read with the possibility of change in mind, willing to let the text be disruptive, got off to a rocky start. . .
We visited one classroom and said to the fifth graders, "As you read, we want you to think about the textual, intellectual, and emotional aspects of the text. In other words, we want you to read responsively and responsibly." We won't even record here how poorly that lesson went.
I must interject. These are two very experienced teachers who get to work with students often, so it wasn't lack of experience or perspective. I can't begin to tell you how helpful it was to me to understand this journey.
Next classroom: "Reading can change you. It can open up the world for you. But as you read, you need to think about your responses and you need to think about what's in the text. And you ought to ask yourself how this will help you be a compassionate person." One student responded, "Will you two be here all week?"
 My guess is that was not a question posed with joy and excitement.
Another day. Another class.  "As you read today, we want you to think about what's in the text and at the same time think about what your responses are to what's in the text." The response from the girl on the third row, middle seat: "Did you say if this was for a grade?"
Finally: "Okay. Today, as you read, think about what's in the book, what's in your head, and what's in your heart." Kids looked up. No one said anything. We took that as a good sign and wrote three words on the board: Book. Head. Heart. One boy repeated, "Book. Head. Heart." Another said, "Like what for the head?" We said, "Just ask yourself, 'What surprised me?' Then you'll be thinking about what was in the book while thinking about what you already know." He nodded and said, "Cool." Another asked, "What's a heart question?" We said, "Try 'What did this show me about me?' or 'How could this change how I feel?'" More nods. We held our breath.
The room was quiet. Kids studied our three words as we added some prompts. Then they shrugged and said, "Okay." And there it was. Three words. Book. Head. Heart. Our frame to remind kids that they need to do more than simply extract information from the text. . . .
 It's simple. Direct. And it keeps kids focused on where they must begin--with what's in the book--and where they must end--with how it's changing them. We tell kids, "Of course you must read what's in the book. The author put those words there for a reason! But you also must read thinking about what's in your own head, your responses. And finally you must read thinking about what you took to heart--your feelings, commitments, and values" (p. 62-63).

Why should you read this book? Why should you think about adopting some of their ideas and strategies? Because reading is meant to inform, entertain, and yes, can change us. It can change the way we understand. It can expand and change what we know or what we think we know. But we have to know how to read effectively, doing more than simply extracting information.

At the beginning of the book, Beers and Probst explain that disruptions begin because someone realizes there is a need for change. They note there are two questions asked: 1) What needs to change? and 2) What assumptions make that change hard? (p. 7).

We want students to be willing readers. We want them to be responsible readers who are will to reflect on what they are reading, who are willing to question what the writer has made them think and feel. It's possible that to help our students become disrupted thinkers, we have to disrupt our thinking and our teaching about how (and what) our students read.

You might also check out their Ten Tips:
Tip 1 Teach More by Talking Less
Tip 2 Value Change
Tip 3 Reading as a Transaction
Tip 4 Let Kids Reread
Tip 5 Book, Head, Heart
Tip 6 Give Kids Choice
Tip 7 Reading the Same Book
Tip 8 Books You Haven't Read
Tip 9 When Your Child Says "I Don't Get It"
Tip 10 Understanding Non-Fiction

Monday, July 16, 2018

Form follows function: For office space and classrooms

www.siue.edu
"Form follows function" is an axiom in architectural circles. Those of us outside of that circle can try to parse its meaning, but let's just go to those who know something of Louis Sullivan. According to ThoughtCo, "Sullivan argued that a tall building's exterior design (form) should reflect the activities (functions) that take place inside the walls of the building."

UX Collective also quotes Sullivan and at length:
Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law. Where function does not change, form does not change… . It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law.
The UX Collective article is actually quite fascinating, so go ahead and digress to explore that quick read. In the user interface context, the writer believes that today the credo might instead be "function follows human needs, form follows human behavior." And that is rather interesting. An example in this article is a chair and you might learn that designing a chair can be pretty complicated.

My current reading chair is a wing back armchair. It's comfortable but sometimes when I want to shift positions, I end up flinging one leg over the arm of the chair. Not good for my back; not great for the chair. Would a recliner be better? Maybe. But I'm thinking about this human behavior thing and wondering how that might impact the design of a reading chair for someone who occasionally would rather be sitting on something that's almost a chaise. Is it the sideways thing I like or just being able to put my leg or feet up? Good question and something a designer might think about.

You might be asking what on earth that has to do with office space and classrooms, but I'm guessing you're already there.

Recent articles have made it clear that the open office experiment has not been successful. According to Ars Technica, open office space is actual less conducive to collaboration and productivity. Inc. reports on the same Harvard study which indicates that face-to-face interactions increased as walls went up as did email and texts.

When I last worked in an office, we had walls. People would email to colleagues who were within a short walking distance. Why email rather than get up and walk? The perception of time saved in that I could send an email and rather than wait for a response, I could continue with other projects. . .and emails. At some point, the emails became ridiculous--even if they did provide a paper trail--and it was easier to get up and go to someone's cubicle or office, gathering others along the way, to finalize the conversation and decisions. And that's kind of my point. The email permitted us to get through some of the chaff to figure out the real issues and determine who really needed to be part of the conversation and then, after a 10-minute confab while leaning against someone's door frame, tidy up the details.

Could we have done that in an open office? I suspect not. Concerns about others eavesdropping on the conversation and offering unwanted, unneeded, or unnecessary suggestions; or others overhearing a conversation they shouldn't be overhearing. Or, for those of us who might have been trying to do other work while the conversation is happening, too much distraction because of that conversation which might or might not be relevant to me and my work. Which is why we see so many people wearing headphones and earbuds if they're working in that open space.

So when we think about the function of an office area or the form of human behavior in that particular office space for that particular organization and type of work, we can imagine how that office space might be organized differently depending on the work.

Does that apply to classrooms? After all, kids are in a classroom to learn. How complex is that after all?

3rd graders & Padlet
Ahhh, well, let's think about that. What does learning look like?

I'm not going to bash the "factory model of education" that has been prevalent for the past 100 years, which is where so many like to go. That's a tired trope. While I work with some teachers who have desks in their classrooms, sometimes those desks are grouped, sometimes they're in rows, sometimes they're in a circle or rectangle. It depends on how much space they have and what's happening in class that day, though it also depends on the teacher and how willing he or she is try something different.

Kinders: floor vs desk
I often ask teachers what they think a particular lesson is going to sound like and look like. I want to know what they see in their mind's eye and what they imagine they would like to hear; I want to them to think about what that learning experience could look like and sound like.

Some teachers can't help wanting Voice Level 0 or Voice Level 1 but I suspect that's because they're more comfortable with quiet than noise. Some teachers have that eye-widening recognition of how they're constraining kids because of the vision they have for what learning should look like and be.

Is learning always linear?

Is learning always hushed conversation and silent reading?

Is learning always tidy work spaces?

No, no, and no. So learning could be messy and noisy. It could be quiet and reflective. It depends on the learning.

Standing, sitting, however
I worked with a school that tried open classroom space for elementary students. The concept was that teachers would have a large space for team teaching and a smaller walled space for small group work, targeted student work, etc. The first challenge was the team teaching and when that didn't work quite as well as hoped, they found ways to create walls. Team teaching worked well in a couple of grades because the teachers figured it out and were okay with controlled chaos. The students adjusted for their classes. The open space for library work and some of the specials were less successful; they are still sorting out solutions.

Does learning really ramp up when form follows function? Maybe. I know a first grade teacher who gave her students choice of where and how to sit when they were reading their books. I was often amused by how students chose to sprawl or sit, but they were focused on their books. Of course, she's not the only one to give students options of choosing to stand or sit and where to sit or where to stretch out.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: pedagogy first. Cool furniture, nifty rugs and wall hangings, far out lighting, bean bag chairs, and chimes. It's all for naught if your teaching is below par.

I think it's great that school architects understand how students learn--and I agree. I think some of the findings in this article are spot on. But they also have to understand that what works in one second grade classroom might not work as well in another and it might not work at all in a sixth grade classroom. There are many influencing factors and many of them are not the same across grade levels. Classroom dynamics between teacher and students. This group of students is different from last year's and next year's will be different from this group. Curricular changes. District initiatives. Parental involvement. Community involvement.

Just as I believe we shouldn't generalize how office space should work across businesses, I don't think we should generalize how classroom space can help students in their learning.

Just as I believe we shouldn't generalize professional learning experiences and just as I don't believe we should generalize all student learning experiences, I don't think we can generalize how classroom space impacts student learning.

I think there are some fundamentals for classroom space: enough accessible outlets, options for teachers to store laptops or tablets so students can reach them as well, options for creating spaces so students can work individually or collaboratively, accessible white boards or smart boards for whole class instruction but also for students to use as they're figuring out their learning, options for media and technology so students can learn individually or collaboratively. The ideal, I think, is for teachers to be able to mix and match what they need for their classroom that's appropriate for their grade levels/content areas, and for how they wants to see and hear learning in their classrooms.

I know there is never enough wall space in a classroom and schools use hall space in various ways. I love the idea of grade level hallway space for posting student work (or QR codes that link to student work) as well as common anchor charts or whatever else they might need. That means kids need to be able to leave a classroom on occasion, which I do see in many schools. And then wall space in the classrooms could include a couple of smaller student-level white board for working out solutions to any kind of problem or learning task.

artspace.com
I also know that teachers like to set up their classrooms in specific ways based on their resources, what and how they teach, and the space they have available. I understand that and believe it makes sense. However, let's assume that function follows human needs, form follows human behavior.

I wonder what could happen if teachers paid close attention to the ways students interacted with the resources in the room, how students tried to make adjustments based on their individual instincts, and what students asked permission to do.

I wonder how teachers might opt to change the room to reflect how students were asking to be able to learn.

I also wonder how teachers might reflect on how they teach and make adjustments to their pedagogy to reflect how students were asking to be able to learn.

Function follows human needs, form follows human behavior. Apparently on multiple levels.

Monday, February 12, 2018

About That Instructional Coach

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about coaching and how a good instructional coach can make a difference for teachers and administrators. It's entirely possible you agree with that but aren't too sure what to do next or that you've had an experience with an instructional coach that wasn't all that positive but your gut tells you to rethink this proposition. Whatever brings you here. let's talk about instructional coaching.

You'd think most folks would understand instructional coaching--what it is and what a good instructional coach can accomplish. Experience tells me that's not the case.

The wonderful image to the left explains a lot of what instructional coaching is all about and one of the most important elements is non-evaluative feedback. One hopes it's on a regular basis, but that can be a challenge. But let me back up a bit.

In 2015, the incomparable Jennifer Gonzalez wrote about being an instructional coach. As she points out, there are reading coaches, math coaches, literacy coaches, and technology coaches. Then there are those of us who are generalists who can and do work with classroom teachers across grade ranges and content areas. My work is about pedagogy and, where it makes sense, an effective integration of technology. Gonzalez interviewed others to get their perspectives on coaching and reports what Elena Aguilar told us in The Art of Coaching: work on the relationship AND listen more than you speak.

I know the teachers with whom I work have expertise and experience. I cannot underestimate that. My job isn't to tell them how to teach; my job is to help them gain perspective on themselves and their students so they can maximize their skills and abilities in the classroom. My job is to help teachers figure out ways to help their students use their natural curiosity to learn how to learn.

Heather Wolpert-Gawron found herself making the transition from classroom teacher to instructional coach, and once that role became a full-time one, she notes she was able to mold the position to meet the needs of her site and her teachers. It's no surprise that the first function she lists is that of mentor. Again, listen more than you speak as you build that relationship. I find the teachers with whom I work often need me to help them filter the thousand-and-one things flying through their heads, and to help them brainstorm and to focus on ideas that they can make work. Unlike Ms. Wolpert-Gawron, I'm not permanently located in a district so my teachers see me once or twice a month. And though I'm available electronically, we make much more use of our face-to-face time.

One of the other roles listed by Ms. Wolpert-Gawron is that of professional development coordinator. When an instructional coach is really listening to a teacher, the coach can calibrate the professional development to meet the needs of a group of teachers or as many teachers as possible. Though we know one-size-fits-all is not ideal, our only option is often meeting with all faculty. So one of the things we need to be able to do is speak generally but engage specifically. In a word, differentiate.

What else do instructional coaches do? Again, Ms. Wolpert-Gawron is spot on: research, curate, and publicize. Most of the districts with which I work have created an email account for me so we can create an internal Google Classroom so I can share resources with teachers. And I can model how to organize and use Google Classroom at the same time! I use Edmodo for another district because that's what we started with three years ago.

I very deliberately called my company p20partners. My original goal was to work with teachers PreK through university level. I've been privileged to work with educators at the PreK through 12 levels, but still trying to break through that resistance at the university level. That's actually irrelevant because the most important part of my company name is "partners." I can't and won't tell a teacher how to do his or her job. I don't know their kids as well as they do and a few observations here or there doesn't give me deep insight into how they teach. HOWEVER, what I do know is that the teachers and administrators with whom I get to work count on me to help them think through their challenges, to come up with tools and resources to help them maximize their time with their students, to be available when they have questions or want to share out ideas via email or text, and to support them through their learning curves without judgment. And when they let me show their kids some new tools and resources to help students and teachers get a sense of the value of that tool or resource, that's just extra chocolate syrup on top for me.

Not too long ago I did a PD session with a group of teachers and we talked for quite a while about the 6 Qs: IQ, EQ, PQ, CQ, CRQ, and IMQ. The 6 Qs have a logical place in the corporate space, but it was clear that the teachers were quite thoughtful about the implications of these Qs not only for them, but for their students. They were particularly interested in the passion quotient and the courage quotient because they struggle with kids who aren't willing to persevere and they wondered if it's because they don't have the courage to fail. Teachers talked much longer than I expected; it was rich and so insightful for me. In fact, that conversation went so well, I'm planning to introduce some administrators to the concepts to see what they think and how the 6 Qs might influence how they interact with their teacher leaders.

I think a key role of an instructional coach is learner. When I have a teacher ask me about something and I get to scurry around the internet looking for resources or crowdsourcing colleagues to see what they know or have used. And then I get to play to figure out what might be best for that teacher and those students. But then I get to share that learning with others who may not even know that's a question they wanted to ask.

Whenever I learn something new, I get to think about "my" teachers and who might find what the most useful. I share with everyone, but I might send a separate note to a specific teacher because I want them to remember that even though I'm not always with them, I'm usually thinking about them and I want their very best for their students.

I always tell my teachers that our time together is not my time, but theirs: it's for their learning and growth, it's for their support and encouragement, it's for them to let me partner with them to help find some solutions or help them think through tools and resources that will meet a learning objective or help their students stretch.

Peg Grafwallner, writing for Edutopia, underscored how often the instructional coach provides that opportunity for processing. Just recently I was reminded of the one-legged interview, one of those strategies I'd forgotten--which reminded me of the conversations I often have with teachers who have forgotten effective strategies they used to use because their immediacy was crowded with all the new stuff. So the one-legged interview is called that because the conversations should last as long as you can stand on one leg. The questions are designed to invite teachers to process or to reflect. Non-judgmental; non-evaluative. A short conversation that may remind me of something or spark something for the teacher or lead to a longer conversation that invites more processing and reflection, more opportunities for me to rummage around the internet and find cool stuff.

So when you're thinking about hiring an instructional coach, either full-time or as a consultant, keep these roles in mind: mentor, listener, encourager, researcher, curator, disseminator, PD coordinator/collaborator, partner, and learner. Your teachers will thank you.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Personalized Learning: More than Student Choice?

Before we can assess how well it is working and what changes, if any, need to be made, we have to know what it is. In this case, the “it” is personalized learning and personalized learning has caused educator quite a bit of agita over the years.

In October 2014, Sean Cavanaugh of Education Week attempted to provide some discernment in his article “What is ‘Personalized Learning’? Educators Seek Clarity.” For many, technology provides the fulcrum for personalized learning. Eliot Soloway was quoted as saying “Many technology-based approaches to personalized learning amount to nothing more than tailoring or personalizing the reading of texts to students of different abilities—rather than personalizing a mix of activities that give students a richer and more meaningful educational experience.”

Teachers are often asking about different reading levels or lexile levels. As Soloway notes, they want different kinds of texts for different reading abilities. Teachers seem to conflate differentiation with personalization but that may also be because personalization seems too daunting. So rather than ask what personalized learning is, perhaps the better question is “What is personalized learning supposed to be?”, or, even better, “What could personalized learning be for students and their learning?”.

In 2017, Audrey Watters, she of Hack Education who likes to rattle comfortable ways of thinking, presented at an OEB Midsummit in Iceland and said, among other things, “But I contend you cannot analyze digital technologies and the business and politics of networks and computers without discussing how deeply embedded they are in what I’ve called the “Silicon Valley narrative” and in what others have labeled the “California ideology” – and that’s an ideology that draws heavily on radical individualism and on libertarianism.”

She has a point. Let’s look at who is investing millions of dollars into personalized learning: Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Why? Well, because they can, of course. The more suspicious of us would see marketing opportunities behind the alleged philanthropy. On the other hand, we know that online organizations want access to a lot of our information and they already gather beaucoup amounts of information through every transaction and every click online. Why? In theory so they personalize the ads we’re shown. And they do. It’s eerie, and a trifle annoying. (“Stop showing me ads for stuff I’ve already bought!” I tend to shout at my laptop, when I actually pay attention to the ads, which I rarely do.) Anyway, we can see the direction in which personalization is heading and has been heading, since back in the day when Burger King first started telling us in 1974 that we could have it our way.

Cavanaugh reported that Andrew Calkins, then deputy director of the Next Generation Learning Challenges, asserted that “[t]rue personalized learning calls for a ‘rethinking and redesign’ of schools, which could require them to overhaul classroom structures and schedules, curricula, and the instructional approaches of teachers.” We all know the on-going argument that teachers’ roles much change so they are “more like those of coaches or facilitators than ‘content providers.’” We also know the practical complexities of that model, especially for younger grades.

What we do know is that software is only one component of providing students with a possible pathway for personalized learning. But there is more to consider.

We also know that teachers and administrators still struggle to understand what personalized learning is or can be. Too many think it requires individualized lesson plans or requires 1:1 access for students. Kenya Ransey observes that ‘[l]earning is the primary focus, and technology can be along for the ride—or not. What does it look like when technology is not at the center of a personalized learning experience?” She also asserts that “it’s critical that we realize that once we all consolidate around a standardized definition, it will no longer be personal.” I’m not sure I agree with that, but I’m not yet sure why.

There are certainly plenty of educators who are not fans of personalized learning. Most of that resistance seems to be based on a lack of understanding of what it is and can be; that is, a lack of a concrete definition and clarity of expected outcomes. However, plenty of educators echo Audrey Watters’ concern that it’s simply an opportunity for large organizations to gather information about users for their own capitalistic purposes. Well, there is that and, let’s face it, every edtech organization wants to gather data on students for a range of reasons.

Robyn Howton is one of those teachers who crashed and burned a few times on her way to implementing personalized learning in her classroom. She did research, tried and failed a few times, made adjustments, and kept going. In her ISTE article, she refers to the Rodel Teacher Council Blueprint for Personalized Learning in Delaware as a resource. At the time she worked without 1:1 in her classrooms and realized that she made some errant choices about which technology to use when. Howton had some great a-ha moments when she analyzed her lessons and realized when and how she might have used technology more effectively which helped her determine which tools to use. (She refers to some great tools, too!)

One of Howton’s most important lessons was to give her students choice: “Class often starts with a mini-lesson, which then flows into students making choices about what they need to do next to meet specific learning targets aligned to the standards.

Writing for the Christensen Institute, Elizabeth Anthony notes “the magic of blended learning lies in the instructor’s ability to leverage technology to personalize learning rather than the mere use of certain software programs. A classroom can incorporate technology without actually changing the classroom model and the way students learn.”

What is interesting to me is how often blended learning is mentioned in connection with personalized learning and how occasionally there is reference to competency-based learning in conjunction with personalized learning. We have a lot of trends in education and that causes much of the confusion. Can you implement personalized learning without blended learning? Is competency-based learning an option in personalized learning? Should we be implementing competency-based learning instead of personalized learning?

But wait. This is about personalized learning and trying to figure out what that is and what it means. I don’t mean to oversimplify but I think Robyn Howton found an important key: student choice. Every teacher has objectives or learning outcomes for every lesson. The question to be asked is whether or not students have to demonstrate their learning in the same exact way and if they have to follow the same exact path to get there? If not, students have choice.

I think another challenge is that teachers think personalized learning, like blended learning, needs to be something they do every day for every lesson. That doesn’t make sense. Younger students won’t have the learning tools yet and some high school students may lack the maturity to make good decisions. And not every teacher can implement personalized learning in the exact same way every year. In fact, for middle and high school teachers, they may not implement personalized learning in the exact same way in every class.

I also think personalized learning is an aspiration for some teachers and they cannot be expected to make that transition overnight. That’s one of the reasons I appreciate Howton’s article and her reflection on her transition to blended and personalized learning. In fact, I think she offers something of a template for teachers interested in trying to implement personalized learning in their classrooms.

Teachers should start small, with one lesson. It’s not just teachers who have to learn how to conduct a class using personalized learning. Students will need to be taught to think differently about their learning and trust that it’s okay for them to have choice.

No one should expect dramatic changes overnight. It will take time and patience. And it will have to be okay to blow it every now and then, and then learn from the experience and what students can report from their perspectives. After all, it is about the students and their learning and what makes the most sense for them to be successful.


References
Cavanaugh, Sean. (2014). What is “Personalized Learning”? Educators Seek Clarity. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09pl-overview.h34.html?r=2043444587

Christensen Institute (2018). Squaring Personalization and Digitization in 2018. https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/squaring-personalization-digitization-2018/. Guest blogger Elizabeth Anthony.
Herald, Benjamin. (2017). The Case(s) Against Personalized Learning. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/11/08/the-cases-against-personalized-learning.html

Howton, Robyn. (2017). Turn Your Classroom into a Personalized Learning Environment. https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=416


Ransey, Kenya. (2017). What personalized learning is not. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-09-01-what-personalized-learning-is-not

Watters, Audrey. (2017). The Histories of Personalized Learning. http://hackeducation.com/2017/06/09/personalization