Overview of my MEd thesis on a self-directed, flexible learning environment for high school students.

1. The Possibilities of Transforming Learning
Barry Dyck
@barry_dyck
M. Ed. Thesis (2013) Mini-view
Shared at MERN, January 30, 2015

2. • “It is critical that we become active
researchers and developers of innovations
and new directions” (Jacobs, 2010).

3. the challenge
“The necessary
knowledge to solve the
problem must be
created in the act of
working on it.” (Wagner
& Kegan, 2006, p. 76)

4. new framework imagined
put students
first
embrace
cultural
change &
practices
realign
assessment
take on a
revolutionary
mindset

5. significance of the study
• We need research of educators who
are taking risks to construct adaptive
environments that support student
learning.

6. scope of the study
• This is one practitioner’s journey of
interpreted experiences of the
phenomenon of constructing meaning
in praxis through reflection and action.

7. practitioner-researcher lens
• Inquiry as stance positions the knowledge
and expertise of practitioners at the center of
educational transformation (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 2011).

8. learning environment elements
inquiry learning
model
inter-disciplinary,
student-teacher
developed
curriculum
multi-grade
classroom
internship
opportunities for
learning outside
the classroom

9. 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?

10. alternative programs
• provide more student control
• build own knowledge
• take responsibility for their learning
• build abilities to learn how to learn
• develop assessment that promotes learning
not grades

11. alternative schools
• Sudbury
• Montessori
• Waldorf (Steiner)
• Big Picture Learning (MET in RI, MET Garden
City )
• Manhattan Free School (Agile Learning
Center)

12. learning
environment
pedagogy of
care
constructivist
learning
student-
centered
learning

13. informing design: a pedagogy of care
• caring relations: foundation for pedagogic
activity (Noddings, 2005)
“No teacher who respects their students
would make them mindlessly learn.
- recent student comment

14. viewing in practice: pedagogy of care
model care
engage in
open
dialogue
provide
students
opportunities
to practice
care
confirm the
best in
students
(Noddings,
2005)

15. informing design: constructivist
learning
• an interpretive, recursive, nonlinear
building process by active learners
interacting with their physical and social
world
• requires considerable time and effort

16. viewing in practice: constructivist learning
Constructivism is a learning theory and not a
teaching strategy.
• inquiry-based learning (project-based,
problem-based, learning by design)

17. informing design: student-centered
learning
Student-centered learning is
about personalizing the “what”
and “how” of learning.

18. informing design: student-centered
learning
• start with experiences and interests of
students
• do--self-directed, purposeful, meaningful life
and work

19. 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

20. practitioner data
• practitioner journals
• practitioner-research notes
• practitioner responses to student reflections
• year-end divisional report

21. student data
• student learning reflections
• student planning documents
• focus group transcripts
• follow-up interviews

22. analysis of data
• The rhizome is about uncertainty (Cormier,
2011). “…[it] 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).

23. analysis of data
– the mapping of connection between discourses
– the focus is on what is being made or what could
possibly be made

24. analysis of data
– 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.

25. analysis of data
I read the data with these questions in mind:
• What are the ruptures, offshoots, connections,
new directions—the lines of flight—that took
place?
• Which lines of flight are similar, overlapping, or
contradictory?
• Where is learning being transformed here? Is it?

26. analysis of data
• I used the participants’ language to identify
section headings.

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

28. “What I was doing actually mattered.”
data

29. “Learning isn’t necessarily linear.”
data

30. “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.”
data

31. • 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).

32. “I’m learning this for me, and not for you.”
data

33. “I always thought of you as part of
the program too.”
data

34. What am I doing differently here that
cannot be done in a regular classroom?
data

35. • 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.

36. implications of the study
• Is it possible to support a senior years flexible
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?

37. 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

38. implications of the study
Understandings required
• Teachers must be able to embrace ambiguity: “a
true problem…is never fully solved” (Roy, 2003)
• 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.

39. implications of the study
Understandings required
• Teachers must see themselves first as learners.
• Learning opportunities should be social to
prevent individuals from working in isolation.

40. 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.

41. 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”)

42. implications of the study
Possibilities for change
• Action is required. (batteries not included)
• We need an approved learning environment
design that allows for alternative and
innovative, “just-in-time,” learner-constructed
curriculum that qualifies for certification.

43. enter the rhizome…
@barry_dyck

44. References
Airasian, Peter W. and Walsh, Mary E. (1997). Constructivist Cautions. Phi Delta Kappan;
Cassassus, J., et al. (2008). The Construction of Learning Environments Lessons from the
Mexico Exploratory Phase. In OECD, Innovating to Learn, Learning to Innovate, OECD
Publishing. Feb, 78(6), 444-450.
Alvermann, D. (2000). Researching libraries, literacies, and lives. In W. S. Pillow (Ed.),
Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education (pp. 114-148).
New York, NY: Routledge.
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.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.
Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic Education: Community as Curriculum. Retrieve March, 2011
from http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/06/03/rhizomatic-education-community-as-
curriculum/

45. References
Cormier, D. (2011). Rhizomatic Learning and MOOCs – Assessment. Retrieved March, 2011
from http://davecormier.com/edblog/category/rhizomes.
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
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
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.
Gatto, John Taylor. (2009). Weapons of Mass Instruction. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society
Publishers.

46. References
Goswami, D., C. Lewis, C., Rutherford, M., and Waff, Diane. (2009). On teacher inquiry:
Approaches to language and literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gough, N. (2006). Sharing the tree, making a rhizome: Towards a nomadic geophilosophy of
science education. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 38(5), 625-645.
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.
Honan, E. (2007). Writing a rhizome: An (im)plausible methodology. Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 20(5), 535-546.
Leander, K. M., & Rowe, D.W. (2006). Mapping literacy spaces in motion: A rhizomatic
analysis of a classroom literacy performance. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 428-460.
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.

47. References
Noddings, N. (2002). Starting at home: Caring and social policy. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
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
Roy, K. (2003). Teachers in nomadic spaces: Deleuze and curriculum. New York: P. Lang.
Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., Rook, D. W. (2007) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice.
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
Usher, Robin. (2010). Riding the lines of flight. European Journal for Research on the
Education and Learning of Adults, 1(1-2), 67-78.
Wallin, J. J. (2010). Rhizomania: Five Provocations on a Concept. Complicity: An
International Journal of Complexity and Education, 7(2), 83-89.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.