The Possibilities of Transforming Learning:A Practitioner Research Study of a Pilot Alternative Learning Environment

Barry DyckM.Ed. Thesis Defense

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Contents

Introduction

Purpose for the Study

Research Questions

Importance of the Study

Theoretical and Pedagogical FrameworkMethodology

Contents

Research Design

Analysis of the Data

Limitations of the Study

Data

Implications

Conclusion

Introduction

I seek to build local knowledge of how to

transform learning as I question common

assumptions about schooling and learning, and

critique the usefulness of research generated by

others both inside and outside the context

(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) of creating

alternative education program for 10 grades 11 &

12 students in a rural grades 7-12 school.

Introduction

transforming learning requires changing roles for both teachers and students

the learning system must adapt to students

the focus should be on learning

Practitioner-Researcher Lens: Inquiry as Stance

inquiry as stance positions the knowledge and expertise of practitioners at the center of educational transformation (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2011)

Definitions

• The practice of implementing alternative schools or programs. Alternative schools and programs focus on what they can offer the student, not on what problems the student has had in the past (Aron, 2003).

alternative education

• An established environment apart from the regular school; students attend by choice (Aron, 2003).

alternative school

• An established class or environment within or apart from the regular school; for specific student needs (Aron, 2003).

alternative program

Definitions

• As there are many ways to be educated, we should provide a variety of structures and environments to meet those differences. Alternative education is best viewed as a perspective (Morley, 1991).

alternative education program

Study Site Context

traditional, 7-12, small rural school offering core academics; course options are extremely limited

vocational courses only available at a regional school

divisional request to develop a program for students who “fall through the cracks”

practitioner with 22 years experience

Learning Environment Purpose

establish a culture of care through caring relations

construct relevant curriculum and learning experiences with the students

use student interest and passions to guide their learning and increase engagement with learning

Learning Environment Design

• examine the relationship between caring and learning

a pedagogy of care

• examine impact of constructivist learning approach on student learning and engagement

a constructivist approach to

learning• examine the effects of giving

students greater direction, choice, and control of their learning

a student-centered

approach to learning

learning environm

ent

pedagogy of care

constructivist

learningstudent-centered learning

Pilot Learning Program Elementsinquiry learning model

inter-disciplinary, student-teacher developed curriculum

multi-grade classroom

internship opportunities for learning outside the classroom

Purpose for the Study

To discover how a pedagogy of care, a constructivist approach to learning, and a student-centered focus impacted students’ learning experiences in an alternative education learning environment.

Research Questions

How did a focus on a pedagogy of care create a learning culture from the perspective of practitioner and student?

What happened when I implemented a constructivist approach to teaching and student learning?

To what extent did giving students greater self-direction, choice, and control of their curriculum impact their learning experiences?

Review of the Literature

• What effective elements of alternative programs and alternative schools could be used in my context?

• What could I learn about designing a learning environment characterized by a pedagogy of care, constructivism and student-centered learning?

• How could I in turn, use this framework to evaluate the effectiveness of the program?

In reviewing the literature I asked the following questions:

Informing Design: a pedagogy of care

caring relations: foundation for pedagogic activity (Noddings, 2005)

a caring relationship is required to gain student trust

in relationship we learn about student needs, work habits, interests, and talents

we then recognize the need for a different approach to curriculum and instruction

Viewing in Practice: pedagogy of care

model careengage in

open dialogue

provide students

opportunities to

practice care

confirm the best in students

(Noddings, 2005)

Informing Design: constructivist learning

learning is constructed, active, reflective and inquiry-based (Dewey, 1938; Piaget, 1953; Vygotsky, 1963)

Fosnot and Perry define constructivism as “an interpretive, recursive, nonlinear building process by active learners interacting with their physical and social world (2005, p.34).

requires considerable time and effort (Airasian & Walsh, 1997)

Viewing in Practice: constructivist learning

As constructivism is a learning theory and not a teaching strategy, here I look at inquiry-based learning. inquiry-based learning (project-based,

problem-based, learning by design) better reasoning & critical thinking skills better generation of hypotheses and

explanations with well-reasoned arguments better conceptual understanding increased motivation (Darling-Hammond &

Barron, 2008)

Informing Design: student-centered learning

Student-centered learning is about personalizing the “what” and “how” of learning.• is active• emphasizes deep learning and

understanding• increases responsibility on student• increases autonomy for learner with

an interdependence of teacher and learner (Lear, Stephenson & Troy, 2003)

Informing Design: student-centered learning

start with experiences and interests of students (Dewey, 1938)

personalize and customize learning (Gatto, 2009; Robinson, 2006)

do--self-directed, purposeful, meaningful life and work (Holt, 1976)

Methodology

Inquiry as stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) provides a framework for the practitioner narrative reflections.

A focus group was used to gather students’ perceptions of their learning experiences.

Constant-comparative methods of qualitative data analysis (e.g. Corbin & Strauss, 2008) did not fit the nature of the study or the data as proposed.

The rhizome as an ontology offers an approach for analyzing the data that can be instructive even if it cannot be perfectly applied.

Research Design

practitioner research (Emig as cited in Goswami, Lewis, Rutherford & Waff, 2009)

focus group (Greenbaum, 1998; Stewart, Shamdasani, & Rook, 2007)

Participants

were in grades 11-12, currently over 18 and graduated, therefore no power-over relationship

recruited via email with a letter requesting permission to participate

permission to include use of student reflections and a follow-up interview

pseudonym initials are used to protect identity

Practitioner Data

practitioner journals practitioner research notes practitioner responses to student

reflections year-end divisional program report

Student Data

student learning reflections student planning documents focus group transcripts follow-up interviews

Research Questions

• How did a focus on a pedagogy of care create a learning culture from the perspective of practitioner and student?

Pedagogy of Care

• What happened when I implemented a constructivist approach to teaching and student learning?

Constructivist Learning

• To what extent did giving students greater self-direction, choice, and control of their curriculum impact their learning experiences?

Student-Centered Learning

Analysis of Data

There is no simple starting point or central idea in the rhizomatic view, rather, it begins in medias res, in the middle of things, where the narrative is nonlinear.

Analysis of Data

The rhizome is about uncertainty (Cormier, 2011). “The rhizome metaphor, which represents a critical leap in coping with the loss of a canon against which to compare, judge, and value knowledge, may be particularly apt as a model for disciplines on the bleeding edge where the canon is fluid and knowledge is a moving target” (Cormier, 2008).

Analysis of Data

Viewed as a rhizome, knowledge becomes a living thing.

Deleuze and Guattari (1987) reject the arboreal metaphor of the tree with its deep roots and foundational trunk with branches that reach out, but remain stationary. They favour the rhizome metaphor for its non-hierarchy and uncenteredness.

Analysis of Data

The rhizome is characterized by heterogeneity and connection; it is constantly producing new shoots and rootlets; it is creative and opens up new opportunities.

Analysis of Data

The tree is about being, whereas the rhizome is about becoming: “Rhizomes do not evolve from an original essence (model), by means of filiation or correspondence, that is, genetic representation. Instead, rhizomes are anomalous becomings produced by the formation of transversal alliances between different and coexisting terms within an open system” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 10).

The rhizome is “an antigenealogy” (p. 21). Books are arborescent, but the web is a rhizome.

Analysis of Data

Rhizoanalysis has been used in education research by others (see Alvermann, 2000; Roy, 2003; Gough, 2006, Honan, 2007; Leander & Rowe, 2006).

rhizotextual analysis Rhizotextual analysis is about “identifying the

intersections and connections, finding moments where the assemblages of discourses merge to make plausible and reason(able) sense to the reader” (Sellers & Honan, 2007)

the mapping of connection between discourses “The focus is on what is being made or what could

possibly be made” (Leander & Rowe, p. 449).

Analysis of Data

rhizotextual analysis (Sellers & Honan, 2007) connections are “lines of flight” (Deleuze &

Guattari, 1987). Lines of flight lead in any direction and

arise in the constant struggle between lines of consistency (stabilizing forces) and lines of flight (destabilizing forces).

Lines of flight open possibilities for change (Usher, 2010).

The Data

“School is boring. Let me get on with my life. Let me learn my own way.” students were willing to try something

different from the traditional system willing to create own learning

experiences of personal value ex. “work towards future” (DF, Interview);

“explore things more” (MK, Interview)

The Data

“School is boring. Let me get on with my life. Let me learn my own way.”

“I knew what I wanted to do, so I knew this program was right for me” (SW, Interview).

Despite this desire some struggled with breaking free, held back by previous negative experiences. ex. “Giving up something I loved to be judged and

given a number was impossible for me after that. I was constantly worried that the teacher wouldn’t like it as much as I did” (JM, Interview).

The Data

“School is boring. Let me get on with my life. Let me learn my own way.”

Assumptions of teachers, other students, the curriculum and assessment also held students back. “I didn’t listen to myself…the program still

had to fit the parameters of the regular system and the students still had to be evaluated by someone to prove that they knew what they were learning” (RT, Follow-up).

The Data

“School is boring. Let me get on with my life. Let me learn my own way.”

A rhizomatic conception of learning where learning grows widely out of sight, unexpectedly surfacing, contrasts with the known arboreal notion of planting a seed containing the genealogy of expected learning outcomes.

While RT “likes to go everywhere all at once” RT also likes “having structure” but was “okay” with going anywhere. Contradiction?

The Data

“School is boring. Let me get on with my life. Let me learn my own way.”

RT clarified in a follow-up interview: Not completing my goals wasn’t the thing that

drove me crazy, actually. It was not having a goal and then creating a goal just because someone else said I should. Of course there was lots of learning going on. I learned a ridiculous amount of stuff about thinking and connectivity.

Here is a clear desire to create one’s own learning map rather than a tracing.

The Data

“What I was doing actually mattered.” students worked diligently to achieve

learning that they were satisfied with as many aimed for a degree of “perfection.”

as practitioner, I supported the divergent paths students took: students were free to alter their goals as needed.

The Data

“What I was doing actually mattered.” the “safe environment” created a sense of

caring that allowed students to take risks, express different opinions and frustrations and even to cry.

mattering meant high expectations for quality work and a reason for learning something (personal value or connection)

“My individual needs and concerns were important to educators” (CS, interview).

The Data

“What I was doing actually mattered.” Concern for grades problematized

students’ personal learning pursuits. My role was to construct a curriculum

with the students rather than to deliver one.

The Data

“Learning isn’t necessarily linear.” students described their learning as

follows: “just let my mind click on all these different

links” (DF, Interview) “branching off…veer off with these other

questions…researching on the fly” (AP, Interview)

“started on a completely different path than I ended up” (MK, Interview)

The Data

“Learning isn’t necessarily linear.” Students started with graphic organizers and felt

that “I can accomplish all of this” (RT, Interview); “This is exactly where I’m going to go” (DF, Interview).

Changing deadlines, a lack of structure and procrastination were reasons given in the interview for not completing their plans.

Yet students such as AP noted “it’s absolutely unrealistic and ridiculous to think that I’ll

be able to complete such a detailed project” (by the set deadline) (AP, Journal).

The Data

“Learning isn’t necessarily linear.” the lines of flight resisted dead lines curiosity led to the building of

connections, of background knowledge

this is rhizomatic learning, without beginning or end

without a structure to trace, students had to create their own paths

The Data

“Learning isn’t necessarily linear” Most described creating their own learning as

“frustrating.” “I got stuck in the question phase” (RT, Interview) “Didn’t necessarily know how to close them” (MK,

Interview) “I’ve decided to narrow my research down…it doesn’t

mean I won’t explore other countries…” (DF, Journal) Final outcomes were a result of an entanglement

of ideas, personal interests and aptitudes.

The Data

“I feel like I haven’t accomplished anything because I don’t have a mark in front of me or physical evidence of my learning.” proof of learning was seen as something

physical (with a mark) DF (Journal) was “willing to work past that

mindset.” AP (Journal) admitted having “no material” and

having “accomplished a lot” in the same entry.

The Data

“I feel like I haven’t accomplished anything because I don’t have a mark in front of me or physical evidence of my learning.” MK (Interview) admitted having more care for the

learning now rather than “moving on” after a bad mark”; MK redid work until it was “the best that could be done” (Interview).

DF worked to “actually understand” because it was of personal interest (Interview).

Despite lack of tangible products RT “excelled in internal thinking” (Interview).

The Data

“I feel like I haven’t accomplished anything because I don’t have a mark in front of me or physical evidence of my learning.” A sense of failure led to a taking on of personal

responsibility and a motivation to gain a deeper understanding.

The shift from a performance orientation (ability, evidence, product-based) to a learning orientation (effort, intrinsic, interest-motivated) resulted in more adaptive motivational patterns (Dweck, 1986).

The Data

“I’m learning this for me, and not for you.” “I got to do everything myself…at no

point…did I have someone tell me I was doing it wrong or it was not what they wanted (JM, Interview).

“I felt totally free of all classes and assignments…for a mark…to make a teacher happy enough to give you a passing grade (DF, Journal).

The Data

“I’m learning this for me, and not for you.” “It was a great relief to be free to

devote all of my learning energy to following my interests” (DF, Interview).

CS was thankful for the “freedom to pursue learning actively” (Interview).

The Data

“I’m learning this for me, and not for you.” Learning for self resulted in greater learning of

self. “Offered me a chance to know myself” (RT, Interview). “I learned more how to teach myself things…instead of

just getting frustrated and giving up” (MK, Interview). “I learned how to really listen to myself…and to accept

that I just can’t do everything” (DF, Interview). A greater understanding of self grew with a clearer

sense of purpose and learning interest.

The Data

“I’m learning this for me, and not for you.” Students views on learning and assessment:

evidence of learning is for self (AP, Journal) learning is never done and does not require proof

of its existence (DF, Follow-up) learning is dynamic, natural and frequently

immeasurable (CS, Follow-up) self-motivated learning results in better learning

(JM, Interview) self-directed learning conflicts with externally-

directed evaluation (RT, Follow-up)

The Data

“I’m learning this for me, and not for you.” Assessment meant to be

representative of learning cannot capture the complex rhizomatic lines of flight that are active and never-ending.

The Data

“I always thought of you as part of the program too.” Daily conversations about learning and

education impacted me and the students.

Decalcomania is the process where ink or paint is placed between two objects like paper or glass, resulting in the creation of a new terrain. Each impression is similar though unique.

The Data

“I always thought of you as part of the program too.” I presented my questions and

wonderings to the students: What is learning? What must be learned? For whom? Whose learning is it?

The Data

“I always thought of you as part of the program too.” Struggles:

letting the students pursue their own learning paths and directing them in ways to achieve a “deeper” understanding

ignoring the required curriculum, making their learning fit into the curriculum, letting them make their own curriculum

adequate resources preparation for post-secondary education and

future work

The Data

What am I doing differently here that cannot be done in a classroom? Prescribed curriculum and a student-

centered, student-interest directed curriculum were in conflict.

How could I enable students to pursue their interests and meet the curriculum?

The Data

What am I doing differently here that cannot be done in a classroom? This kind of conflict can lead to a

multiplicity of ideas if the ideas lead to action (Massumi, 1992).

I had to be comfortable with an uncertain becoming of my role as an educator, rather than being able to work from an idea of who I was.

The Data

Reflections on the questions posed students were keen to pursue their own

interests though felt constrained by the metrics of schooling (e.g., prescribed outcomes, grades);

students were mostly able to construct a personal learning plan with the assistance of the teachers;

students confirmed or changed their job and career perspectives as fitting with their interests;

The Data

Reflections on the questions posed some students struggled between the

ambiguity of self study and the clear metrics of success as determined by scholarship and university entrance requirements;

students’ greater freedom lead to a sense of empowerment, greater self-motivation, self-discipline and a sense of self as an individual and a learner;

The Data

Reflections on the questions posed all students graduated, with several

receiving scholarships and awards; I struggled with satisfying the

requirements of prescribed curriculum and encouraging the students’ self-constructed curriculum.

Implications of the Study

Is it possible to support a senior years free learning environment (learn what you want, where and when you want) in a public school where students can earn some credits for graduation?

Can another concept of learning and knowledge work with the current dominant one?

Implications of the Study

Discoveries students must know that they matter practitioners must assist students in

becoming reflective meaning makers self-constructed learning positions one

for lifelong learning

Implications of the Study

Embrace ambiguity “a true problem…is never fully solved”

(Roy, 2003)

Implications of the Study

Understandings required The teacher still plays a central, albeit

significantly different role than in a traditional classroom.

Teachers will require professional development to work in an innovative learning environment.

Implications of the Study

Understandings required Teachers must have a solid understanding

of how cognition, emotion and motivation affect teaching and learning and how to put that understanding into practice.

Teachers must see themselves first as learners.

Learning opportunities should be social to prevent individuals from working in isolation.

Implications of the Study

Understandings required The knowledge legitimized by the school

curriculum must change (Cassassus et al., 2008). We must ask ourselves what are we educating for? Knowledge is not fixed or limited. We need to know what they are going to do with the knowledge.

Implications of the Study

Possibilities for change A rhizomatic conception of learning is where

curriculum is “constructed and negotiated in real time by the contributions of those engaged in the learning process” (Cormier, 2008, “The Rhizomatic Model of Education”)

A rhizome should be seen as “an experiment that must be risked, rather than an image to be traced” (Wallin, 2010, p. 85).

Implications of the Study

Possibilities for change Action is required. We need an approved learning

environment design that allows for alternative and innovative, “just-in-time,” learner-constructed curriculum that qualifies for certification.

Thank you.

Works Cited

Airasian, Peter W. and Walsh, Mary E. (1997). Constructivist Cautions. Phi Delta Kappan; Feb, 78(6), 444-450.

Aron, L. Y., & Urban Institute. (2003). Towards a typology of alternative education programs: A compilation of elements from the literature. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute.

Big Picture Learning. (n.d.). In Big Picture Learning schools introduction. Retrieved July, 2010 from http://www.bigpictureschools.org/schools

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as Stance. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (2011). Beyond Certainty: Taking an Inquiry Stance on Practice. Chapter 4 Lieberman in A. and Miller, L. (eds.) Teachers Caught in the Action: Professional Development That Matters. New York: Teachers College Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill.

Darling-Hammond, & Barron, B. (2008). Teaching for Meaningful Learning: A review of research on Inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Retrieved August 2011 from http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/edutopia-teaching-for-meaningful-learning.pdf

Works Cited

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Downes, S. (2006). Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. Retrieved February 2011, from http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/paper92/paper92.html .

Fosnot, C.T. and Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A Psychological Theory of Learning. In Fosnot, C.T. (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory Perspectives and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Freire, P. (1986). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Freire, P., & Faundez, A. (1989). Learning to question: A pedagogy of liberation. New York: Continuum.

Gatto, John Taylor. (2009). Weapons of Mass Instruction. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Works Cited

Goswami, D., C. Lewis, C., Rutherford, M., and Waff, Diane. (2009). On teacher inquiry: Approaches to language and literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.

Greenbaum, T. L. (1998). The Handbook of Focus Group Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holt, J. C. (1976). Instead of education: Ways to help people do things better. New York: Dutton.

Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society. New York: Harper & Row.

and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Lange, C. M., Sletten, S. J., & Educational Resources Information Center (U.S.). (2002). Alternative education: A brief history and research synthesis. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (2006). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lear, S. J., D. Stephenson, and J. Troy (2003). Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to Student Centered Learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’. Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 321-334.

Littky, D., & Grabelle, S. (2004). The big picture: Education is everyone's business. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Works Cited

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Martin, Robin Ann. (2002). An exploration of learner-centered, progressive, and holistic education. Retrieved October, 15, 2011 http://www.eucationrevolution.org/exploration.html

Morley, R. E. (1991). Alternative Education. Dropout prevention research reports. Clemson, South Carolina: National Dropout Prevention Center. Retrieved from http://learningalternatives.net/wp-content/uploads/legacy/alted.pdf

Montessori, M. (1949). The Absorbent Mind. Madras: Theosophical Pub. House.

Neufeld, G. (2007). Working With Stuck Kids. Course material for a week intensive. Self published.

Noddings, N. (2002). Starting at home: Caring and social policy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Parker, F.W. (1886). The Practical Teacher. New York: E.L. Kellogg and Co.

Parker, F.W. (1896). Talks on Teaching. New York: E.L. Kellogg and Co.

Works Cited

Piaget, J. (1953). The origin of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Paul.

Robinson, Sir Ken. (2006). Bring on the learning revolution. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Stake, R.E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7, (5-8).

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435-454. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.)

Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., Rook, D. W. (2007) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1963).

Weimer, M. (2003). Focus on learning, transform teaching. Change, 35(5). Retrieved June 3, 2011 from http://www.smith.edu/deanoffaculty/Weimer%202003.pdf.

(Wheatley, 1996)

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.