The End of the Local Monopoly, Part II

by futurist Richard Worzel, C.F.A.

An edited version of this article first appeared in the November/December 2008 edition of Teach magazine.

In my last blog, I talked about how we both can and should move away from the local monopoly of whatever teachers happen to be available to a given student. To recap, what I am proposing is that each student’s curriculum be customized to suit the talents and interests of that student, and that instruction should be focused to emphasize that student’s learning style and emotional intelligence. I also suggested that the instructors should be selected based on who would be the right fit for that student instead of giving the student whoever happened to be nearby. To do that would, almost inevitably, rely on new ways of using technology. In particular, this approach would depend on distance learning to make available educators who might not be nearby, self-directed learning at the student’s pace, plus using technology to supply and support the information flow and gauge the student’s accomplishment. I also suggested that each student’s progress should be monitored by his computer, using biometrics. This would assess their interest, engagement, and motivation, but under the supervision of a human tutor or guide who would intervene when difficulties or uncertainties arose.

This time, I’d like to talk about how we might accomplish this. Right at the outset, though, I should say that I do not know how this will happen, only how it might happen. Predicting the future accurately and consistently is not given to humans, including (or perhaps especially) me.It seems to me that creating this kind of differentiated instruction would have to include the following pieces:

1) We would have to assess the talents, abilities, and interests of each student. This would be a process that would continue throughout the student’s education as they matured, discovered new fields of endeavor, and new abilities and interests within themselves.

2) We would have to assess their learning strategies, emotional intelligence, and such other factors of brain function and personality that would allow us to create an optimal means of instructing them. At the moment we do very little of this, but I suspect that once we start working on it, we will find that there are a relatively small number of different styles and techniques that work for large groups of students. We will also probably find individuals who do not fit the most common molds, and for them, we might have to be more intensive and inventive in our approaches, asking our best and most talented tutors and trouble-shooters to work with them for a period of time.

Start with what interests the student

3) We would want to start with things that interest the student and use those interests as a vehicle for introducing them to areas of study that they would need as part of a “common curriculum.” For example, if a young student is interested in computer games, her tutors might suggest she might like to try her hand at creating a computer game. To do that, she would need an understanding of creating story lines, which would allow the tutors to introduce her to the great stories and characters from literature. Clearly, she would need to be able to read, and to create a storyline, she would need to be able to write. She might also want to learn about the mechanics of creating a believable world, whether it operates on the rules of magic or technology. She might want to learn about arithmetic, geography, science, botany, and anatomy in order to create more realistic worlds and more challenging situations. Moreover, she is unlikely to be the only student who might have such an interest, so having her engage with other students, perhaps to have them work on a common game, and also to illustrate to her, by comparison with the work of others, the value of having a greater depth of knowledge as a means to create a more satisfying result. It would also help her learn teamwork and socialization skills. Part of the tutors’ responsibilities would be to guide her learning so that she learned core subject materials without losing her enthusiasm and love of learning.

4) We will need media that support hyper-extensible learning materials to permit free-form exploration; support the creation of simulations; provide access to a wide range of materials; support all kinds of media, including text, audio, video, demonstrations, and so on; and permit interaction with people in different locations, both in real time, and asynchronously. Fortunately, such a medium already exists: the World Wide Web with instant messaging, video cameras, and email, run from a reasonable (but not overly expensive) computer. There will need to be special software to ensure that students are not exposed to inappropriate materials (although this will be difficult – is already difficult – as they are very clever at getting around restrictions), and to monitor their progress. As software in this area evolves, and becomes smarter, the software will be able to both suggest avenues of exploration, and ask the supervising tutor to intercede for assistance or direction when appropriate. In time, software will evolve into a kind of smart companion with a modicum of judgment, and the ability to interpret and oversee activity. When in doubt, it would always default to requesting help from a human tutor.

What about teachers?

5) We will need teachers, tutors, guides, sages, mentors, instructors, trainers, coaches, and exemplars in many different fields and locations to provide human instruction in person, over the Internet, or by other means to groups of students, as well as one-to-one assessment, supervision, and advice. Hence a student who wants to pursue painting might be mentored by a working artist, potentially even collaborating in creating specific pieces. This will be slightly different from maintaining of a large body of professionals whose primary purpose is pedagogy (i.e., teachers). Instead, we will need professionals in a wide range of areas of endeavor who are compensated for teaching and tutoring, and who also study the practice of successful pedagogy.

6) We will also need professionals whose primary occupation is to oversee the work of students, assess their progress, intercede when they have difficulties, and secure resources, whether human, print, or electronic, to allow them to continue their educations. They will be highly empathetic and caring, and may follow their students’ progress throughout years of development, perhaps even for a given students’ entire formal schooling career.

7) We will need bodies of knowledge, prepared in media that make them easy to use, and allow them to be snapped together with related learning modules. Much of this can be developed from existing materials. It may be more adaptation that invention, but will still have to be done well in order to be of greatest utility.

8) Finally, we will need inventors who see potential connections and better ways of doing things, who survey what is being done elsewhere and cherry-pick the best parts and adapt them for the schools they work with. They will not be bound by current conventional ways of teaching (although they should not ignore them, either). They will be responsible for continually upgrading the means of delivery, the interaction of the different parts of the education system, and assessing how well it is all working together. There should be no end to this invention and upgrading process; we should assume we will always improve what we are doing, and how.

How do we start?

One thing that is not on this laundry list is how we start. I would start by creating a working group of interested teachers, parents, students, and administrators. I would ask them to assess what is available in this approach now, what is being done in the most successful experiments around the world, and propose a small-scale start at a single school, or a small number of schools, looking to develop and prove techniques. However, unlike many “special schools,” my purpose would be to create patterns, tools, and techniques that could be replicated widely, rather than to create showcases that are of no value to learners elsewhere.

Moreover, I suspect we will find that we are too hide-bound in our approaches. For example, above I suggest that we use web-browsers, email, video conferencing, and instant messaging as media for instruction. It might be that creating a computer gaming world as the principal metaphor for education would be a more successful approach, one that engages the students, and allows sufficient flexibility to do or explore almost anything. That’s not part of the typical toolbox most educators (or commentators) would likely consider, but computer simulations and games are not only becoming big in their own right, but are being adopted by major corporations, as well as employed very successfully by the U.S. Army for training purposes. Computer gaming isn’t just kid stuff anymore.

But the fundamental principles I would espouse in approaching this entire area are: 1) Keep the students’ interest in learning high; 2) Customize the curriculum and learning approach to suit each student; 3) Find the best people to act as tutors or mentors for each student; and 4) Keep striving to improve the results. If we do that, we should be able to improve the results for students, create a more interesting working environment for educators, and produce better results for the system as a whole.

© Copyright, IF Research, October 2009.