Learner-led

I recently ran across an article written by Dr. Tyler Thigpen, co-founder and head of The Forest School, The Forest School Online, and Institute for Self Directed Learning and instructor at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education. In his article “Differences Between Teacher-Led and Learner-Led Education – Practical Steps to Make Change Happen,” Thigpen attempts to differentiate teacher- or school-centered models of learning with learner-centered models.

Thigpen describes teacher-led environments as places where teachers focus on knowledge and skill building, a place where teachers make choices for students, and evaluate those students’ progress or lack thereof. Teachers set the pace, meaning they decide what is going to be learned when. Teachers lecture. Teachers explain. Teachers are at the front of the class. Classrooms are quiet and controlled. Teachers are responsible for meeting learners’ needs. Teachers make rules for learners to follow. Teachers set goals. And, sometimes, teachers form deep relationships with students [I added the “sometimes”].

According to Thigpen, learner-led environments allow teachers to be Guides and focus on whole-child development, including knowledge and skill building but also purpose-finding, social and emotional growth, character formation, and marketplace skills. Learners choose, and Guides customize learning plans and provide coaching. Learners assess themselves through peer review, expert review, and self-evaluation, and Guides give growth mindset praise and highlight roadblocks they observe. Learners set their own pace for their own learning, and Guides monitor their progress. Learners explore, and Guides tell stories that inspire and share learning materials. Guides show world class examples, ask Socratic questions, and facilitate experimentation, peer-to-peer learning, and e-learning. Guides are alongside or in the background. Learning studios are sometimes quiet, and sometimes they are busy and appear chaotic. Guides facilitate “productive struggle,” provide supports, and guide learners to become self aware and to self-advocate. Learners make rules that Guides approve, and Guides design learning challenges, structured schedules, seating arrangements, incentives, and natural consequences for learners to experience [until the Learners themselves are able to perform these tasks – my addition]. Learners set goals, and Guides “hold up a mirror” so that learners more clearly see barriers and opportunities to meeting their goals. Guides facilitate team building and form networks of deep relationships for learners to enrich their social capital so that they may flourish as humans.

My wife tells me that personalized learning is not scalable, that maybe a few kids can benefit from microschools and learning pods, but most young learners are destined to spend their time in school.

But if you take a look at Thigpen’s description of learner-led environments, it’s not that far of a stretch to think we can provide this type of support for all of our young learners, is it?

What would it take for Thigpen’s vision of learner-led environments to grow across the landscape?

Here’s a list of “needs” to get the ball rolling:

1. Parent education – I’ve written about this before, but many parents just don’t know how bad their kid’s learning experience is at their neighborhood school. Workshops where parents can learn more about learner-led education would be a first step in creating a well-versed, critical-thinking parent base, able to make better decision about where they are going to send their kids to learn.
2. Learning coach/guide training – Most teachers won’t know how to do what Thigpen lays out as learner-led pedagogy. We must find places and people who can host training for a new type of adult learning leader. So far, our institutes of higher education have been skeptical that this is the pathway for them to take when it comes to preparing learning leaders.
3. A pairing algorithm to match adult learning leaders with young learners – Assigning adult learning leaders and their young learners through class schedules and class lists must stop. We have the technology now to pair adults and young learners based on their academic interests, along with their social and emotional makeup.
4. Funding – We must figure out how to give poor families the opportunity to choose something other than to send their children to a low-performing public school. The learner-led vision Thigpen lays out is possible for middle-class and upper-middle-class parents, but until we figure out how in-need families access this type of opportunity, the learner-led movement will be as inequitable as our present public school system.
5. Courage – Sometimes you just need to try different when the same isn’t working. I get it that most families are fearful a move to a learner-led system won’t work out, but those families need to ask themselves right now how they feel about what their current public school is doing to make their kids smarter and stronger.

It’s doubtful existing schools will be able to do the hard work of learner-led education. Maybe some can, but most are made up of a different paradigm, a paradigm that believes in the power of the teacher, the importance of a standardized curriculum, the essentials of pen-to-paper assessments.

Reading Thigpen’s explanation of learner-led education made so much sense to me, compared to the teacher-led description. Is it just me, or is the learner-centered model just way more compelling in the end than what we currently offer our kids?

I’m away tomorrow, but I’ll be back Monday.

SVB