Summary: A multimedia and in depth learning ecology lesson is available. Slides and Audio. Whether you are after content learning or metalearning, George Siemens offers understanding and advice on how you creates a learning ecology -- and supports the subsequent evolution of quality . His ideas will apply online or off.

PS. You can navigate in nonlinear fashion --attending to voice, or slides or graphics, as you like.

His graphic above (slide 19 in his audio and video sequence), captures important segments of the depth complexity of a learning ecology.

PPS. Nota bene. This delivery demonstrates what can be done with powerpoint. Further, because he has used "Articulate" - a Windows-friendly powerpoint-augmenting software -- you get more features and don't have to worry about downloading, compressing or decompressing. :o]

[George's Material came to me via Will Richardson's Weblogg-Ed ]

Summary: The resources abound for technically inclined teachers and motivated and technically inclined learners.

The picture makes sense when you've read the Jan 25 entry on Bee-Coming A Webhead. It's all really happening.

Michael Coghlan is now presenting Hearing Online Voices in EFL/ESL on Yahoo Messenger for the BaW 06 Evo Session. 30 people present, among whom 3 Brazilians (Carla Arena, Erika Cruvinel from Brasilia and myself in Sao Paulo). Aiden is explaining how she participated in an audio exchange with Michael and how the students became the main protagonists in the chat. Michael describes how Chris Jones (Arizona), Anne Fox (Denmark) conducted exchanges online with their classes. Buthaina (Kuwait) had webheads listen to students' oral presentations and ask questions. Aiden and Michael have recorded wonderful messages for my blogging workshop on the Summer School Podomatic.

It's almost to the point where people are "taking it for granted". Scary -- cause we still have to pay attention to whether we are teaching!!

[technorati: weblogging, edublogging, onlinelearning]

Summary: Bill Wong's parents and I mull over what Bill should learn next. I've just finished a conference with the teacher. Now we explore the same topic with Bill's parents.

The parental take on the "short and sweet" is probably neither short nor particularly sweet to any of the others involved in the question of what and how to teach.

[See my earlier entries in the What to Teach sequence of entries. The first entry is here , and the second is here . ]

This entry and the one which will follow will focus on parental and individual takes on exactly the same profile of skills.]

* A reminder: Bill Wong is a hypothetical person. His profile does represent, however, the very real complexity that each person, each learner brings to the discussion of what to learn/what to teach.

---

Now, instead of discussing the results with principal and superintendent or Bill's teacher, I work with Bill's parents to think about Bill's test results. What do they think should be taught?
Mr. and Mrs. Wong have requested a review of Bill's test results. They want to plan his middle school and high school education. As we sit down they both glance at their copy of Bill's Profile of test results (A copy just above ).
Mr.Wong: Is this some kind of report card or something? We called for this meeting to talk about Bill's future.	Spike Hall: It's Bill's Achievement Profile. I've taken all of his achievement test results and summarized them in this graph. This graph can really help us think about Bill's future.
Mr. W makes sure his copy is the same as mine and then notes, " It's pretty complicated , I see that, but I don't see any of the courses he's signed up for on the chart!. What's it have to do with what we're meetings for -- And what're the vertical lines about and the colored dots and so on. (Mrs. W nods in agreement.)	Spike Hall: Ok. Each vertical line is an area of development. For example, gross motor development translates into, say, athletics. Each vertical line is, like gross motor (athletics), an area of important development that starts with what you and I and Bill -- everybody-- generally bring into our first days in a school and ends with what some  of us master in our late teens. Generally speaking, roughly one hundred things, things that need to be learned pretty much in order, are, presented during each year of school. Of course there are individual differences and school to school differences in how much is presented and how much is learned.
Mrs. W asks, "Are those differences important?" Oh -- and what is that horizontal line across the graph. Is that important? I see some of his dots, five, are above the line and a couple are a little bit below?	Spike Hall: That's an important question Mrs. W. That line represents what other boys and girls of Bill's age are capable of doing -- on the average. You can see --
Mr. W interrupts to say: Fine Motor, Gross Motor, Math and Ethics are the ones that are obviously above and Receptive Language and Expressive Language are below. What does all of that mean?	In everyday speak? Bill's capable of reading and writing and speaking but, at least on tests and during observations, he comes up a shade under the class average in those skills. But in athletics, in penmanship and in drawing and in knowing and sharing what he considers right and wrong he is outstanding. Sometimes his skills in communication -- or  his reluctance to communicate--, I'm not sure which -- your experience at home may help clear up that mystery -- get in the way of his communicating that strong sense of right and wrong and of justice. Even with communications skills exactly as they are he's clearly a leader, a leader for the good, in my opinion, in these areas.
Mr. W: So he's high in some areas and low in others. Are we supposed to do something because of that?	Spike Hall: I'd say yes! All of us should build from this profile-- at home and at school-- to construct what all of us, Bill most of all,  would consider a desirable, doable set of possibilitiees. We can, I believe, build from Bill's high skills (and high interests) in his schooling to help him  grow in all his  areas. Now that we have this information, we can use it to tailor how we advise Bill on activities and how we encourage him to take on new projects and to set goals. In other words, with this material in hand you and I and Bill can all make life more challenging and more interesting to Bill. At the same time, we can help him see how other areas (math, for example) can support the growth areas that he really does like.
Mr. W: Makes sense so far. But we need to talk over the results with Bill. It's ok, right? (Hall nods emphatically). He's never seen this kind of thing before.	Spike Hall: Makes sense. Then maybe we can have a follow up with all of us and Bill putting together a plan or outline that builds upon Bill's interests and strengths to take him farther on the path he seems to be on.
Mr. W: Hold it. What if he changes his mind three years from now? What if he wants to, all of a sudden, focus on, say, poetry -- which is not interesting to him now.	Spike Hall: That would be his choice. The idea isn't to make him a slave to his best skills or his least skills. Rather-- it is to have his skills work for him and for his evolving life interests (and your backing for them). The idea is for him and you be in the driver's seat when it comes to building his future. When he has the inclination to shift his priorities our job isn't to stop him or to say, blindly, "Go for it!". Our job, at least as far as I see it, is to help him learn and to help him project the consequences of his actions and plans into the future . We would weigh those future consequences against his needs and our greater experience and report our "findings" to Bill. As he gets older and more "in command" our reports become more and more advisory -- a back-up resource to his own evolving command of his future prospects.
Mr. W: Sounds good. Mrs Wong: Good but work too!! Hmm!! But nothing we wouldn't be doing anyway. This is the first time I remember thinking that school and home we're obviously working for the same thing.	Spike Hall: Nice to hear you say that Mrs. W. Yes it will be work and much communication for all of us. I'll look forward to hearing from you two and Bill after you've had your talk about these results and what they mean. Let me know If I can help as you and Bill get into thinking about his growth plan. However your discussions turn out, it would probably a good idea for all of us to get together in the next 2-3 weeks. Next time your house? I'm really looking forward to our next discussion!!

Five minutes later Mr. and Mrs. Wong' and Hall exit the school building on their way to their cars. As Mr and Mrs. drive away Hall waves and smiles. They're too busy talking to notice! He nods his head, smiles and gets into his own car.

Summary: I have written admiringly of John Taylor Gatto before. I am provoked to do so again by Mike Kilen's moving summary and critique of mandatory schooling (aka the factory model of education). There are large dangers to 'factorified' education; the worst, IMHO, is each student's loss of relationship to her or his potential. What's left? The sole decision: as to how much one commits to, or resists, becoming an "appropriately trained" worker participant in a one-size-fits-all vision of existence .

To quote Gatto (via Mike Kilen in today's Des Moines Register):

"To raise kids to get a job rather than find a way to be useful in the world[italics mine*, SPH] is an act of murder," Gatto said.

"In a perfect world, he would close all government schools, use the money to pay parents or other experts to teach kids and sponsor apprenticeships."

"It's not going to happen although a growing number are taking education into their own hands by home schooling.[sigma]

[sigma]So Gatto would start by taking the profit out of teaching kids the relatively easy tasks of reading and arithmetic. He'd eliminate the administrators and school boards. He'd have small, neighborhood schools and measure performance by individualized instruments while teaching themes instead of subjects. He would allow flexible time and space for students to think critically and perform creatively, all within a framework of core values of work, duty, obligation, loyalty, service and fun.

---

*I'd rephrase more explicitly to say, "find a way to become a satisfactory version of one's vision of one's unique self and at the same time be useful (i.e, contributing to the ongoing project of righteous survival for the immediate and extended community )

Links:

• Gatto's web site
• His acclaimed and Insightful The Underground History of American Education
• An audio clip from "The Paradox of Extended Childhood"
• His link to World Prosperity - " A group that is dedicated to defining the root causes of social dysfunction, the most fundamental of which is a dysfunctional educational system."

Summary: Bill Wong's parents and I mull over what Bill should learn next. We've just finished a conference with the teacher. Now we explore the same topic with Bill's parents.

The parental take on the "short and sweet" is probably neither short nor particularly sweet to any of the others involved in the question of what and how to teach.

[See my earlier entries in the What to Teach sequence of entries, First entry here , and the second here . This entry and the one which will follow will focus on parental and individual takes on exactly the same profile of skills.
* A reminder: Bill Wong is a hypothetical person. His profile does represent, however, the very real complexity that each person, each learner brings to the discussion of what to learn/what to teach.

---

Now Bill's Parents and I process Bill's Results. What do they think should be taught?
Mr. and Mrs. Wong have requested a review of Bill's test results. They want to plan his middle school and high school education. As we sit down they both glance at their copy of Bill's Profile of test results(Copy just above )
Mr.Wong: Is this some kind of report card or something? We called for this meeting to talk about Bill's future.	Spike Hall: It's Bill's Achievement Profile. I've taken all of his achievement test results and summarized them in this form. This form or graph can really help us think about Bill's future.
Mr. W makes sure his copy is the same as mine and then notees, " It's pretty complicated , I see that, but I don't see any of the courses he's signed up for on the chart!. What's it have to do with what we're meetings for -- And what're the vertical lines about and the colored dots and so on. Mrs. W nods in agreement.	Spike Hall: Ok. Each vertical line is an area of development. For example, gross motor development translates into, say, athletics. Each vertical line is an, like athletics, area of important development that starts with what you and I and Bill -- everybody-- generally bring into our first days a Kindergarten class and ends with what most of us master in our late teens. Generally speaking, roughly one hundred things, things that need to be learned pretty much in order, are, learned each year of school. Of course there are individual differences and school to school differences.
Mrs. W asks, "Are those differences important?" Oh -- and what is that horizontal line across the graph. Is that important? I see some of his dots, five, are above the line and a couple are a little bit below?	Spike Hall: That's an important question Mrs. W. That line represents what other boys and girls of Bill's age are capable of doing -- on the average. You can see --
Mr. W interrupts to say: Fine Motor, Gross Motor, Math and Ethics are the ones that are obviously above and Receptive Language and Expressive Language are below. What does all of that mean.	In everyday speak? Bill's capable of reading and writing and speaking but, at least on tests and during observations, he comes up a shade under the class average in those skills. But in athletics, in penmanship and in drawing and in knowing and sharing what he considers right and wrong he is outstanding. Sometimes his skills in communication -- or reluctance, I'm not sure, your experience at home may help clear up that mystery -- get in the way of his strong sense of right and wrong and of justice. But he's clearly a leader, a leader for the good, in my opinion, in these areas.
Mr. W: So he's high in some areas and low in others. Are we supposed to do something because of that?	Spike Hall: I'd say yes! We build on this at home and at school. We can, I believe, be pretty darn active in involving Bill's high skills (and high interests) in his schooling and in helping him bring enhance the other skills to support his strong areas. I believe that, now that we have this information, we can use it to tailor how we advise Bill on activities and how we encourage him to take on new projects and to set goals. In other words, with this material in hand you and I and Bill can all make life more challenging and more interesting to Bill. At the same time, we can help him see how other areas (math for example) can support the growth areas that he really does like and with which he has such considerable skill.
Mr. W: Makes sense so far. But we need to talk over the results with Bill. It's ok, right? (Hall nods emphatically). He's never seen this kind of thing before.	Spike Hall: Makes sense. Then maybe we can have a follow up with all of us and Bill putting together a plan or outline that builds upon Bill's interests and strengths to take him farther on the path he seems to be on.
Mr. W: Hold it. What if he changes his mind three years from now? What if he wants to, all of a sudden, focus on, say, poetry -- which is not interesting to him now.	Spike Hall: That would be his choice. The idea isn't to make him a slave to his best skills or his least skills. Rather-- it is to have his skills work for him and for his life interests (and your backing for them) be in the driver's seat rather than some anonymous and bureaucratic textbook series. When he has the inclination to shift his priorities our job isn't to stop him or to say, blindly, "Go for it!". Our job, at least as far as I see it, is to help him learn and to help him project the consequences of his actions and plans into the future -- and to weigh those consequences against his needs and our greater experience.
Mr. W: Sounds good. Mrs Wong: Good but work too. But nothing we wouldn't be doing anyway. This is the first time I remember thinking that school and home we're obviously working for the same thing.	Spike Hall: Nice to hear you say that Mrs. W. I'll look forward to hearing from you two and Bill after you've had your first talk. If I can help interpret or back up interpretation at school with Bill in class let me know. Then we'll all get together in the next 2-3 weeks. I appreciate your coming over and your kind comments so much!!

The Wong's and Hall exit school building on way to cars. Mr and Mrs. drive away having an animated conversation. Hall waves and smiles. They're too busy to notice!

Summary: Real Person and I talk about the Meaning of Life and Learning For Bill Wong. RP and I begin to talk about developmental profiling in general and as it would benefit instruction in the classroom (in RP's case a High School classroom). (This will be the first of a series of entries on how classroom activity and the learner's cutting edge can or should relate to each other.)

---

---

We Talk about Bill, Potential and Real Life.
RP and I are sitting in my office after he's had a rough and demanding day in his High School History Classroom. We're planning later classes in his Masters program. As we are just finishing up our planning he looks over at this chart that's been sitting next to his papers. (Copy just above )
RP: Whatya got there, some kind of graph. I remember you showing us progress graphs in the assessment class.	Spike Hall: It's Bill's Achievement Profile. I've taken all of his achievement test results and summarized them in this form.
RP moves to my side of the table so he can see it better. So what're the vertical lines about and the colored dots on them.	Spike Hall: Ok. Each vertical line is an area of development that starts with what kids generally bring into the beginning of a Kindergarten class and ends with what the best kids master in their late teens. All in all, roughly one hundred things, things that need to be learned pretty much in order, are supposed to be learned each year in each area.
RP squirms a bit, picks up the chart and reads labels, rotates chart first vertically then horizontally
RP: Okay, I get the basic idea, sort of. What are each of the areas?	Spike Hall: GK: General Knowledge. That which is frequently a major component of so-called IQ tests. Material that should make sense on news shows, that comes up in the newspaper, how everyday things work, safety, history, that sort of thing. RL: Receptive Language. Reading, Listening and Signing recognition are examples. In general, receptive language involves: The ability to process incoming language. This requires ability to receive some signal (as examples the word "dog" as said by another, "dog" as signed by another or the word "dog" on the printed page). This ability requires a set of "words" that are recognizable by the individual. The ability to process complex linguistic messages requires memory and grammatical decoding skills as well. EL: Expressive Language. Writing, Speaking and Signing are examples. In general, expressive language involves: The ability to process an outgoing message. This requires the formulation of an intent, the translation of that intent into a set of semantic items, the grammatic connection of those items into a message and the generation of signals appropriate to those grammatically connected items The ability to process complex linguistic messages requires short-term memory as well as the skills already mentioned. FM: Fine Motor. Fine motor skills: The ability to coordinate hand in small spaces to accomplish such things as handwriting, carving, puzzle assembly, knitting, sewing, etc. Usually aided by senses of sight and touch GM: Gross Motor. The movement of the body in space as in walking, running, tumbling, gymnastics, swimming. Athletics of competitive and noncompetitive forms generally involve the demonstration of skilled gross motor skills. Dancing involves the above plus the ability to move as influenced by the rhythm and even mood of music. ML: Math and Logic. Perception of, reasoning and communication about amount, amount and space(as in geometry and trigonometry) and logical relations as they have bearing on various understandings concerning everyday and professional existence. Soc: Social Skills. Ability to respond to and send messages which are socially effective in the context. This would include manners, perception of emotions, expressing emotions effectively, leading, following, cooperating, negotiating. E: Ethics, Ethical Skills. The ability to perceive the application of moral and ethical principles to practical and general situations involving individual, small and large group behavior. The ability to not only perceive but to influence the ethical practices of others would combine both social and ethical domains.
RP has become increasingly agitated while all of this explanation has taken place. His foot is tapping and his face is a little redder than it was a few minutes ago.
RP: [Splutter, cough … ]. I'm having trouble getting behind this project--- connecting it to what I do, which is teach History to kids who start out having no use for it and too often end up the same way. I have attendance problems, I have a Department head who thinks videotapes and DVDs 75% of the time are the answer. Help me make the connections Spike -- I'm not seeing them!	Spike Hall: Okay. Let's start with a premise, namely, that each student will learn well and easily if instructional material, content and process are at or near her or his "readiness level", also that it will not go wellor easily if the material is too far below or above "readiness level". Look now at Bill, particularly at his "profile". What do you see?
RP: Well, for one, his profile has hills and valleys. The hills, I suppose, represent strength and the valley's weakness. Right?	Spike Hall: Close enough but with some qualifications. First, it will depend on how you define strength. If one defines strength as "power" with a material (say social skills) that is greater than that one one's peers. Then yes. But it will depend on the individual. The goal-directed won't be so pleased or sense themselves so powerful if even a relative social strength in social skills or logic or whatever isn't sufficient to realize self-set goals. But, yes, let's talk of strength as defined by one's power relative to one's peers. How does Bill measure up in that sense?
RP: Well I wouldn't know about Bill except with reference to himself-- that is how many objectives out of the total K-13 set he has mastered. In some areas more than others. Those are self- and sequence- related strengths right?	Spike Hall: Right. That's the way I see it too. But we also have that funny dashed line going across the chart. That represents the average that is expected of people who are the same age.
RP: That would allow us to compare him to the "norm". Ok, I get it and on that basis he's quite strong in in Fine Motor and Gross Motor skills, and really good with Ethics; and more or less average in other areas.	Spike Hall: Do you see any implications from this pattern of average to terrific in various skill areas?
RP: Maybe. Hmm. Maybe the Ethics would be useful as we look at political history or social dynamics or the conduct of school board and city council meetings, etc.	Spike Hall: I agree. But it isn't just benefit to the class. It's benefit to him. If you ask things of him and instruct him in a way that respects and interacts with his present skills and beliefs you will be more likely to help him make significant growth. It doesn't have to be a totally different curriculum to do that. You can still have the American History textbook play a significant part. But how you use it can be adjusted to skills, values and profiles, to the benefit, and learning pleasure, of all.
Rowanda F., fellow faculty member and advisor to RP, drops by and is invited to sit down. She listens a bit while looking over the Bill W chart. She gets an intensity of look and is clearly about to say something. Spike and RP look expectantly in her direction. Rowanda: You two are obviously onto something hot and, as much as I've been able to gather getting here late, it seems really worthwhile. But - hey --I'm concerned about something too. Where is it that Bill's aims, ambitions and concerns are folded in? [Rowanda continues] One of the most powerful forces for success in Bill's (and any other student's] program has to be what s/he wants, what s/he will commit to, what goals are driving actions right now. Even if we keep the subject matter organization, this really should be questioned, but even if we did, we have to have Bill sitting in the driver's seat and with us as advisors. This chart will give Bill insight, us too. But it shouldn't call the tune. It's not that Bill is low in X and high in Y that is important. What is centrally important is what Bill wants to do now and what he wants to become. The fact that he is high in Fine Motor skills and Ethics may inspire choices of goals or methods... but shouldn't BECOME the goals. [Rowanda concludes] Finally I don't see one assessment that I think is central if Bill is going to be in the driver's seat (and he should be). It has been called metalearning and deuterolearning -- but basically is how good he is at learning to learn. Having an understanding of how well he independently or with guidance learns to learn any given subject (for example the general subjects on this chart) is insight Bill needs as he tries simultaneously to find out who he is, what he wants and what he might be good at. [Rowanda exits] Sorry guys to introduce the subject and then exit but have an appointment for which I'm already 10 minutes late.
RP: Wow that's too much too fast but I think I've been swayed!!! At the same time I don't really know what this chart or expanded one Rawanda is referring to has to do with how I run my History class. More on that later.	Spike Hall: [laughing] She's always like that. Frays the nerves, at least in my case, but there's lots to be had by replaying what she says. In this case I've got two things to start with. The first one is that Bill has to be at the center. These test results are for Bill's guidance as he makes decisions; we are informational and planning resources, but it's his plan!! This is a far more radical idea either of us might realize. The second is the whole idea of learning to learn. If you accept the idea of Bill's being in charge of his learning -- and he is,ultimately, however much we insist on control of our classroom or class processes, then knowing just what his l-to-l skill in each area is important as he chooses what to do. Finally, he should probably understand how good he is at this central skill and what he can do about it. My mind is tired. Let's quit for now.
RP and Spike agree to let it go for the day. RP wants specifics and Spike promises to describe possible uses and classroom actions that are tuned more exactly to RP's history classroom.

[Stay tuned for further interactions. Bill Wong: Part II.]

Summary: Readiness theory would have us predict that learning will be real and non-trival to the extent that what is being taught about and how it is taught matches the content and learning strategies already "owned" by the learner. It seems that the education profession is quite comfortable with this as a general statement; however, the useful application of this maxim in classroom situations, i.e., something that results in improved student learning, is appallingly small . Class lectures and/or reading one chapter at a time from a text, as representative examples of current practices, are not good ways to maximize student learning. In this entry I offer one basis for understanding why this is so and then I sketch several ideas for making the ideal into the real.

Moving to Personalization from Large Group Instruction is a BIG Deal:

Assume that you have the objective sequences, tests, and instructional activities for several content areas planned; that map is lying in front of you. If you are teaching in an elementary school as a classroom teacher, you may have to teach each of thirty pupils in each of these content areas. If you are a secondary or adult-level teacher working in a typical situation, you may have as many as two or three content areas to cover for perhaps ninety to one hundred and fifty students.

Let's look at the elementary classroom. In that classroom, as stated before, you might be responsible for thirty students' progress in five curriculum areas. You would probably be responsible for reading, language arts, arithmetic, social studies, and science. As is illustrated in the first table, your personalization problems would be considerable. In these five areas you could, if each student had different objectives from all of the others in that area, have responsibility for personalizing in a classroom with instruction required for 150 (5 areas x 30 students) objectives.

Thankfully, since there are usually several objectives which are needed for more than one student, the required instruction would probably come closer to a distribution like that illustrated in the table below example (where instruction is required for approximately 85 objectives as the year begins ).

In such a situation there is no way that "whole class" lectures alone could be a useful instructional activity for each of the students depicted below (as x’s in the table below) . Even if your lesson was perfect, that lesson could only say the appropriate thing to a small fraction of your students (those who had sufficient skill levels to be able to learn from the concepts that you were using).

The other students might sit still, might even acquire pieces of the information here and there, but would not learn in the sense that you assumed or were hoping for.

The Personalizer's Dilemma
Reading		Language Arts		Arithmetic		Social Studies		Science
Obj. #	# of Students	Obj. #	# of Students	Obj. #	# of Students	Obj. #	# of Students	Obj. #	# of Students
1	--0--	1	--0--	1	--0--	1	--0--	1	--0--
2	--0--	2	--4--	2	--0--	2	--0--	2	--0--
3	--2--	3	--1--	3	--0--	3	--5--	3	--2--
4	--1--	4	--1--	4	--0--	4	--5--	4	--3--
5	--1--	5	--1--	5	--0--	5	--3--	5	--3--
6	--1--	6	--1--	6	--2--	6	--1--	6	--1--
7	--1--	7	--0--	7	--3--	7	--1--	7	--1--
8	--2--	8	--0--	8	--1--	8	--0--	8	--4--
9	--2--	9	--0--	9	--1--	9	--1--	9	--1--
10	--3--	10	--1--	10	--1--	10	--1--	10	--1--
11	--3--	11	--1--	11	--1--	11	--3--	11	--1--
12	--0--	12	--1--	12	--1--	12	--1--	12	--1--
13	--1--	13	--1--	13	--0--	13	--1--	13	--1--
14	--1--	14	--1--	14	--3--	14	--0--	14	--0--
15	--4--	15	--1--	15	--2--	15	--0--	15	--0--
16	--4--	16	--1--	16	--1--	16	--0--	16	--0--
17	--1--	17	--1--	17	--1--	17	--1--	17	--0--
18	--0--	18	--1--	18	--1--	18	--1--	18	--0--
19	--1--	19	--1--	19	--1--	19	--0--	19	--0--
20	--0--	20	--0--	20	--1--	20	--1--	20	--0--
21	--1--	21	--3--	21	--1--	21	--1--	21	--1--
22	--0--	22	--3--	22	--1--	22	--3--	22	--1--
23	--1--	23	--3--	23	--3--	23	--0--	23	--1--
24	--0--	24	--0--	24	--3--	24	--0--	24	--1--
25	--0--	25	--1--	25	--1--	25	--0--	25	--1--
26	--0--	26	--0--	26	--0--	26	--0--	26	--1--
27	--1--	27	--2--	27	--0--	27	--0--	27	--1--
28	--1--	28	--0--	28	--0--	28	--0--	28	--0--
29	--1--	29	--0--	29	--1--	29	--0--	29	--0--

You can probably see that this same sort of reasoning applies to any secondary or college classroom situation that you might describe. While there might be fewer subjects taught during the day, there would be more students. The likelihood of one textbook page or one lecture being appropriate for all students is virtually zero. The difficulty of managing the delivery of personalized instruction is at least as difficult for the secondary or college teacher as it is for the elementary teacher. And , if maximizing the rate of student mastery of (not exposure to) material is the goal , it is equally crucial to the success or failure of the secondary and college enterprise

Organizational Assumptions

Normally, we interact with people spontaneously, and in a 1, 2, 3, 4 at a time fashion. However, teaching and personalization are not "normal" relationships. The relationship in each is purposeful and planned. Personalization, when it occurs, requires the simultaneous distribution of a teacher's purposes, plans, and interactions among thirty people, at maximum; and at minimum (as in the reading example in Table 1), among four to six individuals or clusters of individuals.

In order to have the maximum impact upon all thirty individuals in a classroom, there has to be a radically different organization to instructional activities than there would be, say, to a conversation.

Each personalizer has many forces with which he or she must deal in order to personalize. All of those forces mandate high organization in order to accomplish individually prescribed instructional objectives. A list of these forces is given in the following table.

With these factors in mind, you can see that personalization requires a high level of classroom organization. It follows that a lecture format does not allow personalization and thus is not productive in terms of student learning. Implementing a high/middle/low grouping plan will allow finer tuning of instructional delivery. Everything else held constant this will enhance average learning of objectives per week but will be far short of what is possible.

The cause of personalization will be advanced considerably by moving the teacher out of the role of a bottleneck in the flow of instructional information and organizational and operational communication (One thing about large group lecture, choral recitation and all doing the same thing—fewer decisions for the teacher . When the teacher organizes the personalized classroom s/he is building in a necessity for many more moment to moment decisions. Why? Because decisions are no longer the same for all nor do they occur at the same time. Thus the need for careful planning and organization in the personalized classroom. The bottleneck is found when every or most instructional messages and organizational decisions must be created on-the-fly by the teacher. When the bottleneck exists the classroom pace grinds down to a snails pace within moments of the beginning of class.

On the other hand, if the volume of decisions is planned for, these decisions are anticipated and thus built into the structure and processes of the classroom. Class members act independently as signaled by place, circumstance or time. Once these signals are planned and then learned and practiced, the multiple organizational and instructional decisions will be carried out independently by members of the class. During class hours the teacher spends time on planned instructional delivery and on individual learning concerns that have not been built into the carefully designed personalized learning environment.

By having much of the organizational decision-making and instructional communication capable of occurring independently of here-and-now teacher action we eliminate the bottleneck. All students will have access to the instructional communication and organizational decisions that they need. Thirsty people will get to drink when they need it, or, in ‘instructionese’, each person will get the lesson that is appropriate to her or his level of readiness.

Teaching a System as Well as Subject Matter:

Your major trick will be to set up an instructional system that eliminates the bottleneck, and to teach students to use it. In such a system, you would reserve for yourself those instructional communications and organizational decisions that could not be made by students or materials. Naturally, the fewer of these on-the-fly the less likely there will be bottlenecking.

Components of Your Organizational System

The major idea of your system is the division of the total activities of the class into subactivities which are carried out at centers. For example, the centers might be as follows:

1. direct instruction/individual counseling
2. tape and filmstrip,
3. group study,
4. reading,
5. individual work,
6. mastery testing,
7. daily monitoring of progress in each (orspecially targeted) subjects.

Each center has its organizational rules which govern its use and which are posted for all to see in its location. This particular subdivision of classroom activities is not the only one possible. Subdivisions could be based on subject matter (e.g. science, reading, math, etc.), or topics, such as environment, creativity, etc. in which all basic skills have a part. (For example, the environment center might have required math, reading, writing, and social activities associated with its objectives.)

[Edited for html problems readability 12/1. Also having trouble with MarsEdit and Radio Userland Handshakes]

Summary: It's hard to find a path to educational reform. Using "deficiency scores" on norm-referenced tests is and ineffective approach, even if it's sincerely intended only as a startup catalyst. They just aren't family-, school- or teacher- friendly enough to translate into effective reform. The heat they generate consumes resources while enhancing nothing but the level of distrust of Federal change efforts.

Effective reform must translate directly into classroom change, one child, one objective and one lesson at a time. (And yes, NCLB doesn't work because, while it may generate just criticism, it does not simultaneously generate effective change.) What could fit these "good change effort " specifications is curriculum based testing in multiple developmental areas. The pay off for such a monumental test development and administration effort is that, even if the results do not flatter our present instructional efforts or systems, we will have created a precise "what to teach next" estimate for each individual in each of multiple developmental areas.

One motivator: A local demonstration the reality that individual growth isn't yet touched by what we do now. One approach to such a sketch, cousin to the present dysfunctional consumer of state funds, could take flesh as a statewide assessment of a representative sample of schools. This assessment would actually help has to in two ways that our present mandated system does not: a) it would be curriculum referenced and directly translatable into retargeted, individually tailored instruction, and (b) we would then have a sense of what is possible (from trial teaching and summer teaching) and what is real, right now. We could use these discrepancies to focus our reform efforts.

A piece of such an analysis is sketched and explained below.

---

I'll illustrate by filling in (hypothetical) results for the sixth grade in the state of Floriana. For this illustration I'm discussing results in 3 of 14 areas of development* from the table of my last entry and interpreting. Pieces of the table with interpretation follow below:

Statewide Measures of Developmental Knowledge: Sixth Grade
Data Timing or Analysis--------> Type of Skill	A Test Begin School Year	B Test End School Year	C Test Begin Next School Year	D School Growth/ Week	E Summer Growth/ Week	F State Annual Growth/ Week	G National Begin Next School Year	H National Annual Growth/ Week
General Cultural Information	660	770	830	2.8	5.0	3.3	1092	2.4
Receptive Communication (Listening, Recognizing Signed Communication, Reading, etc)	902	1092	1110	4.8	1.5	4.0	1010	3.0
Social Interaction (Including Self Control)	1242	1382	1424	3.5	3.5	2.0	800	1.5
Ethical/Moral Understanding and Behavior	1010	1154	1221	3.6	5.6	4.1	600	1.5

---

In this example I am assuming that 3900 objectives have been carefully and rigorously sequenced as stairways to growth for for any learner. The phrase "carefully and rigorously sequenced" means that if one is tested and found to be ready for objective 29 then s/he has mastered/doesn't need all objectives of lower number and would fail at tests of mastery of objectives of higher number. There are more than enough possibilities in each area for even bright 25 year olds.

Columns A-F report state averages whereas columns G and H report national averages.

Columns A-C and G report report average positions within learning sequence at state and national levels, respectively.

Columns D-F and H report average growth per week at the state and national levels, respectively.

---

Now that the stage has been set for our mental experiment, what might Floridians note about this data? How might they interpret it. How would these intrepretations affect future actions?

First, let's note column D . It's values are the computed average weekly growth rate during the school months (roughly 36 weeks of school distributed over 40 weeks of the year). We find that in the state of Floriana students master an average of 2.8 objectives of general cultural material, 4.8 objectives having to do with receiving and understanding information that made accessible in books, lecture, television, conversation,etc,3.5 objectives per week having to do with social interaction skills (manners, reading body language, negotiations, games, are examples) and 3.6 objectives per week having to do with moral/ethical behavior (for example, behaving in such a way so as to benefit others and to support, say, social order and what society considers "a good life"). In short, progress is made in the sixth grade; there seems to be markedly less learning in the area of general cultural understanding, however.

Comparing what we've just learned from column D with the information from column E allows us to compare the impact of school with the impact on non-school life as they each affect the growth of sixth graders. This comparison makes it obvious that, in the State of Floriana, non-school has a decidedly stronger impact on growth in all areas but receptive communication. What this means will require further research by Florianan policy makers.

Finally, Florianans will probably want to compare Florianan to National levels of achievement and growth rates.
Levels of achievement: Florianan students are higher in all but general cultural information.
Growth rates: Sixth grade Florianan students have a higher annual growth rate in all areas: for the first three areas growth rate is 25-33% higher. Perhaps most interesting is the growth rate of Florianan students in ethical/moral behavior. It is just short of three times greater than the national average. With a difference this big I suspect that the only surprise will be for an out of state analyst. This will come as no surprise to Florianans once noted. It may well be an indicator of a strong and unique divergence of the Floridian life-style and belief-system from that of the nation as a whole.

However Florinian analysts end up calling the divergence from national norms, the differences between Summer growth rates and School Year growth rates needs understanding. What is it that accelerates the summers (or depresses growth in the school year)? Are there factors in classrooms , curriculum choices, preprofessional or inservice training or supervision that could be altered. However this analysis turns we can check growth rates again next year and determine if our chosen solution was effective. That is, we can check if we adopt and use the criterion-referenced, curriculum-referenced test system that was initially developed to assess the system as a whole.

Don't worry, in the criterion-referenced view, teaching to the objectives is fair and appropriate. Just don't teach memorized answers from a purloined or otherwise copied master test.

Summary. This entry takes up where my earlier entry on Needs Based (or Goal Free) Evaluation [at the general level] left off. In this one I've decided to conduct a 'mental experiment' by beginning to describe a needs based evaluation of our schools.

In order to procede with some intellectual order that we'll start with the following definition:

"A student is having educational needs met when:

• a) she/he is receiving appropriate instruction for her/his "zone of proximal development" (roughly synonymous with "readiness level" and first articulated by L. Vygotsky);
• b) this condition (a above) will be bet in each of 14 distinct areas of development (see below for a list);
• c) the conditions indicated in a and b above are also delivered at a rate that is determined by maximum comfortable rate of learning in each area of development for each person.*"

---

Then we get busy.

For starters: Conduct a needs based (goal free) assessment in one tenth of the school districts of one state. Get pre and post data over one calendar year. Use criterion and curriculum referenced testing in each of 14 areas of human endeavor. Add a sampling at the beginning of summer to enable an estimate ofthe amount and sorts of learning that occur outside of school.

In order to design school improvement efforts we must know what to improve. Thus we will have to profile the benefits (i.e., the learning) presently derived from schools. Such a profile will allow us to portray the rate, breadth and depth of school learning. This information cannot stop with the basics, i.e., 'reading, writing and arithmetic'. We are concerned that our developing citizens are capable of engaging with deeper issues, such as active citizenship, an understanding and care for the natural environment, etc. We are also concerned with development of individual potential wherever it is headed (as long as it is not hostile to or destructive of the general social order). In order to test our present delivery (via home and school interventions) of such a breadth of skills we'll have to test quite broadly. We will also --- in order to be sensitive to rate of learning as an indicator of potential-- we'll also have to be able to determine the degree to which the average rate of learning of such skills is close to optimal (i.e., a sufficient realization of what is possible with "state of the art" instruction).

Statewide Measures of Developmental Knowledge: Sixth Grade
Data Timing or Analysis-------------> Type of Skill	Test at Beginning of School Year (v1**)	Test at End of School Year (v2)	Test At Beginning of Next School Year (v3)	School Year Growth per Week (v4)	Summer Growth Per Week (v5)	Annual Growth Per Week(v6)	National Avg. at Beginning of Next School Year (v7)	National Avg. Growth Per Week (v8)
General Cultural Information
Receptive Communication (Listening, Signing, etc)
Expressive Communication (Speaking, Signing)
Written Expression
Numerical and Logical Understanding
Bodily Coordination
Eye-Hand Coordination
Social Interaction (Including Self Control)
Introspective Knowledge
Ethical/Moral Understanding and Behavior
Musical Appreciation and Expression
Visual and Multidimensional Appreciation and Expression
Mechanical/Scientific Appreciation and Expression
Appreciation and Interaction with Natural (Living and NonLiving) Systems

This would give us a basis for deciding what we would like to do given what we presently [have been proven to] accomplish with our schools.

---

* This implies that the instructional system will be providing instructional materials, lessons and tests at a pace that is dictated by individual rate of learning as opposed to a fixed schedule. Thus, at any given time, students will be working on different objectives, with different materials, for differing lengths of time. It should be obvious that, while I have stated needs to be, roughly,"to grow as much as possible in areas of activity that are valued by most human societies", this does not overlap with subject coverage in most schools.
** All variables are calculated averages deriving from statewide grade level sampling of actual instruction. Another variable, Potential Annual Growth per Week, could be created through use proven alternative curricula on a cross sectional subsample of students in representative regions of the state . *Edited 10/20/05

Summary: Must we always evaluate only because a funder or service provider mandates or requests the evaluation? For example, must we only evaluate a school as required by, say, the school board or the school's faculty or administration? Must the local hybrid gas-electric engine plant be evaluated only as corporate offices dictate? The answer to all is no! In this entry I work to unpack the ideas using thoughts from Michael Scriven, eminient philosopher and evaluator. As you probably can guess, I will fold in some thoughts and interests of my own.

---

Scriven's Description:

"... the evaluator is not told the purpose of the program but does the evaluation with the purpose of finding out what the program is actually doing without being cued as to what the program is trying to do. [....] Merit is determined by relating program effects to the relevant needs of the impacted population, rather than to the goals of the program (whether the goals of the agency, the citizenry, the legislature, or the manager) for the target (intended) population. It could equally well be called "needs-based evaluation" or "consumer-oriented evaluation" by contrast with goal-based (or "manager-oriented") evaluation. It does not substitute the evaluator's goals nor the goals of the consumer for the program's goals, contrary to a common criticism; the valuation must justify (via the needs assessment) all assignments of merit. The report should be completely transparent with respect to the evaluator's goals.

One of the major arguments for the pure form is that it is the only systematic or design procedure for improving the detection of side-effects. Evaluators who do not know what the program is supposed to be doing loom more thoroughly for what it isdoing. Other arguments for it include:

• (i)it avoids the often expensive, always speculative, and time-consuming problems involved in determining true current goals and true original goals, reconciling and weighting them;
• (ii) it is less intrusive into program activities than GBE [Goal Based Evaluation];
• (iii) it is fully adaptable to midstream goal or need shifts;
• (iv) it is less prone to social, perceptual, and cognitive bias because of reduced interaction with program staff; and
• (v) it is 'reversible', that is, one can begin an evaluation goal-free and switch to goal-based after a preliminary investigation thereby garnering the preceding benefits (whereas if you begin goal-based, you can't reverse);
• (vi) it is less subject to bias arising from the desire to please the client because it's less clear what the client was trying to do.

[...]

GFE is somewhat analogous to double-blind design in medical research; even if the evaluator would like to give a favorable report (e.g., because of being paid by the program, or hoping for future work from them) it is not (generally) easy to tell how to 'cheat' under GFE conditions. The fact that the risk of failure by the evaluator is greater in GFE is desirable since it increases effort, identifies incompetence, and improves the balance of power.

Doing GFE is a notably different and enlightening experience from doing the usaul kind of evaluation. there is a very strong sense of social isolation, and one comes to be extremely conscious of the extent to which GBE evaluations are not reallly 'independent evaluations' even when they are called that; they are cooperative efforts, and hence easily co-opted efforts. Ones is also conscious of the possibility of enormous blunders. It is good practice to use a metaevaluator and very desirable to use a team.

[GFE is not a method in the same sense of other evaluation methods ... in that it can be combined with any one of them, except a goal-based evaluation, and that only for a part of the investigation. i.e., start multimethod goal free and after having reaped all desired benefits switch to goal based and start working more closely with program personnel.] [Evaluation Thesaurus,4th edition, 1991, Sage p 180-182]

---

It is clear from what MS has argued that he believes that one can evaluate without being program driven. He has made clear that the GFE does revolve around some form of needs analysis which puts limits on the breadth and depth of inquiry. Thus there is some agenda, with argument and political subscription of some degree, which will serve as a driving set of values from which the needs analysis will be derived. You have to start somewhere however, and, if you are doing other than putzing around, you better have some large group of stakeholders invested in the needs assessment that you use in your GFE in order for it to be deemed worthwhile.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we have built our needs analysis [an analysis of some portion of human existence which leads to a description of needs which are entailed and a working definition of what "meeting" those needs amounts to]. Our GFE would then concern itself with determining the causal effects that the chosen program or programs, has had upon the client population.

If, say, one were inquiring about safety from various forms of fire, there would be a set of needs that, if addressed effectively, would result in a minimal average risk of injury or loss due to fire. It seems clear that since absolute safety (no fires, no damage, no form of injury, ever) is impossible, some statistical goals will serve as standards for excellence, satisfactory and unsatisfactory service. All of this having been said, the fire system of, say, Dogpatch, could be directly observed and statistically weighed against those statistical standards without any consideration of what programs are being offered by the Fire Department as a whole, by the separate fire houses or by the individual firemen. This, then, would be GFE of fire protection in Dogpatch.

Could we also do a Needs Based Evaluation of education in Dogpatch or its distant, metropolitan neighbor, Erehwon? Yes! I believe we could.

The basic outline would be the same: List the needs, educational needs in this case, locate and translate standards for excellent, satisfactory, unsatisfactory and dangerously low levels of meeting of those standards and sample, measure and estimate until a confident estimate of true standard adherence has been created. However, it would be more difficult with education.

First, education's mission differs, at least at the outer boundaries, from town to town. Further, even given a common general agreement as to mission, to develop each child to her/his maximal individual potential, for example, the difficulty will derive from great number of possible practical translations. Given this considerable ambiguity what I will next say can only be taken as illustrative. Whatever the standards and however chosen they must be a potent, useful, assessable, yet at the time acceptable to the stakeholding recipients of the GFE Education report.

Let's say that criterion referenced developmental sequences of objectives in each of Howard Gardner's distinct developmental areas are chosen as basis for testing. Further, we've found an authority who's already developed and applied those sequences in K-15 in multiple regions of country. Part of that translation has involved the development of criterion-referenced, group administratable, tests which reliably place each person within their "zone of proximal development" (ala Vygotsky). Finally the same tests have been reliably used to assess learning rate (objectives mastered) for each individual in each area of development, given appropriate instruction at proximal level of development.

Given this much we will be able to proceed to some fruitful needs-related assessment.

[Go to my next entry for further details.]

Summary: I've been away (for more than 2 months) for several compelling reasons. One, for example, has to do with the preparations for and financing of the wedding of my youngest. Another has to do with the recasting of myself outside of a professorial mode- i.e. what else, after being a "Special Ed Professor" can I/will I do to nurture personal and familial body and soul? More, perhaps, on those topics later. At this moment I want to list several of my seed ideas --- to ensure a more likely later expansion of each.

---

The list of ideas:

• Goal-Free (or Needs Based) Evaluation
• The Needs of Gifted
• Are Gifted also Autodidacts?
• Deuterolearning: Does High Capacity for Deuterolearning Correlate with High Rate of Classroom Learning? How much? What are Controlling Variables?
• Models/Specs for Needs Based Assessment. Start with N of 1 and Work outward to self-sufficient No Growth communities
• What would be processes and products of a Goal Free/Needs-Based School Assessment?
• CMap -- a free software which will enable collaborative knowledge development as augmented by jointly developed co