Personal Competencies in Personalized Learning - centeril.org

48 Pages·2015·2.03 MB·English

Personal Competencies
in
P�rs�n����e�
Learning
indicators
instrupcrotfiicoienncy dquealitlyirveienfroyrcpseetremart gegronieutsp siemopxrtocrveiamameln-tueramasls oaectsitosivmnitaeienls tcomcsopemaetm tiuemnneiccatyion
parents technology relational suasion motivation students
dinetecreistisonhsome metacognition metrircosutinecsurricsucielnucme culture
engagement rmeasdtienryg
competencies
learn
faimniglie hs abeitnsLviroenmeantrconmmunity manegdeia datag
schoeonvolinlie dceonmcmeunity
enhancement personalization
skills classroom teachers management
self-direction
prior kenxopewctlaetidongse hbaebhit afovrmioatrison differentiation
by
Center on Sam Redding
in
goals
needs
math
cognition
school
scaffolding
norms choices
outcomes
contexts
preferences
relationships
programs
literacy
www.centeril.org
The Center on Innovatons in Learning (CIL) is a natonal content center established to work with regional comprehensive
centers and state educaton agencies (SEA) to build SEAs’ capacity to stmulate, select, implement, and scale up innovatons
in learning.
Learning innovatons replace currently accepted standards of curricular and instructonal practce with new practces dem-
onstrated to be more efectve or more efcient in the context in which they are applied.
The Center on Innovatons in Learning is administered by the Insttute for Schools and Society (ISS) at Temple University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in partnership with the Academic Development Insttute (ADI), Lincoln, Illinois.
The Center is funded by the U.S. Department of Educaton, Ofce of Elementary and Secondary Educaton (OESE), under the
comprehensive centers program, Award # S283B120052-12A.
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily refect the positon of the supportng agencies, and no ofcial endorse-
ment should be inferred.
Cover design by Stephen Page; text design and layout by Pam Sheley.
©2014 Center on Innovatons in Learning, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
Personal Competencies
in Personalized Learning
Sam Redding
Center on Innovations in Learning
Acknowledgements
I am greatly indebted to my colleagues at the Center on Innovatons in
Learning—Allison Crean Davis, Marilyn Murphy, Pam Sheley, Janet Twyman,
Herb Walberg, and Mark Williams—for their critques of drafs of this
publicaton. Special thanks to Janet Twyman for adding the technology-aided
resources to the templates and ofering great instructonal strategies. Rich
discussion of the paper’s topics with Greg Austn, Ian Guidera, Jason Snipes,
Fred Tempes, and Catherine Walcot at WestEd proved invaluable and kept
me humble. A meetng with Carol Dweck at Stanford University was a delight,
an honor, and lef me with a legal pad full of notes. As always, Stephen Page,
Pam Sheley, Robert Sullivan, and Lori Thomas expertly edited the piece, and
Pam Sheley contributed its design.
Sam Redding
Table of Contents
Personalized Learning ........................................................................................................................... 3
Teachers’ Relatonal Suasion and the Four Personal Competencies .................................................... 7
Personal Competency Framework ........................................................................................................ 8
Personal Competencies and Learning ................................................................................................ 10
Contexts for Enhancing Personal Competencies ................................................................................ 11
School Community ............................................................................................................................. 12
School ................................................................................................................................................. 13
Classroom ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Templates for Enhancing Personal Competencies in the Design of the School’s Contexts ................. 14
Explanaton of Template Components ............................................................................................ 14
Context: School Community ............................................................................................................ 15
Context: School ............................................................................................................................... 23
Context: Classroom ......................................................................................................................... 32
References .......................................................................................................................................... 38
About the Author ............................................................................................................................... 39
Personalized Learning
Personalized Learning
Personalized learning is in fashion today with new technologies
Personalized learning is a
promising to make practcal what educators have sought for a
hot topic these days, raising
very long tme—efcient and efectve ways to manage curricu-
both hopes and concerns:
lum, design and deliver instructon, and provide each student
Is it a fad that will pass or
with a customized learning path directed, in part, by the stu-
an idea whose tme has
dent. The U.S. Department of Educaton (2010) defnes person-
come? Does personalized
alized learning in this way:
learning disregard
Personalizaton refers to instructon that is paced to learning
interpersonal learning?
needs (i.e., individualized), tailored to learning preferences
Will personalized learning
(i.e., diferentated), and tailored to the specifc interests of
give us the big jump in
diferent learners. In an environment that is fully person-
alized, the learning objectves and content as well as the student achievement we
method and pace may all vary. (p. 12) desperately seek? Does
By giving operatonal detail to the technology-enabled individ- personalized learning
ualizaton of learning in this defniton of personalizaton, we are mean kids spending more
able to rope in aspects of learning that are both personal and tme staring into electronic
interpersonal. Redding (2013) artculates a defniton of person- devices? What, exactly,
alized learning sufciently capacious to capture the signifcance is personalized learning?
of the teacher–learner relatonship and provide some specifcity (Redding, 2013 p. 116)
as to the dynamics of personalizaton:
A broader, more fecund defniton is that personalizaton
refers to a teacher’s relatonships with students and their
families and the use of multple instructonal modes to scaf-
fold each student’s learning and enhance the student’s
motvaton to learn and metacognitve, social, and emotonal
competencies to foster self-directon and achieve mastery of
knowledge and skills. Or more simply, personalizaton ensues
from the relatonships among teachers and learners and
the teacher’s orchestraton of multple means for enhancing
every aspect of each student’s learning and development.
(p. 6)
“Every aspect of each student’s learning and development”
is a massive vessel and begs for parameters to make it a man-
ageable construct. The parameters appear in the preceding
3
Personal Competencies
sentence: motvaton, metacogniton, social/emotonal compe-
tency, and mastery of knowledge and skills. A typical goal state-
ment for educaton focuses on mastery of knowledge and skills.
A constellaton of related knowledge and skills serves to defne
an area of competency, for example competency in mathemat-
ics. Personal competencies, however, are primary drivers of all
mastery, and they are:
• Cognitve competency—prior learning that facilitates new
learning
• Metacognitve competency—self-regulaton of learning and
use of learning strategies
• Motvatonal competency—engagement and persistence in
Personal Competencies
pursuit of learning goals
• Cognitve competency— • Social/emotonal competency—sense of self-worth, regard
prior learning that for others, and emotonal understanding and management
to set positve goals and make responsible decisions
organizes the mind and
Personal competencies are applied by students in learning
provides associatons
(mastery of knowledge and skills). These competencies, then,
and understanding to
are both acquired through learning and applied in the learning
facilitate new learning
process.
• Metacognitve
Personalized learning—a promising approach to educaton
competency—self-
made practcal by advances in technology—only magnifes the
regulaton of learning importance of personal competencies. Underlying the opt-
and use of learning mism about personalized learning is the belief that a student’s
strategies desire to learn and efectveness in learning are enhanced
• Motvatonal competency— when the learning is personalized, meaning that the student
engagement and is given greater choice in selectng topics, greater control over
persistence in pursuit of the learning environment and learning strategies, greater
learning goals access to learning resources, and frequent feedback about
• Social/emotonal learning progress. Placing the student in a more prominent
competency—sense of role in her learning only magnifes the importance of personal
competencies.
self-worth, regard for
others, and emotonal Wolf (2010) explains the importance of technology in taking
understanding and personalized learning to scale:
management to set Personalized learning requires not only a shif in the design
positve goals and make of schooling, but also a leveraging of modern technologies.
responsible decisions Personalizaton cannot take place at scale without technology.
Personalized learning is enabled by smart e-learning systems,
which help dynamically track and manage the learning needs
of all students, and provide a platorm to access myriad
engaging learning content, resources, and learning opportuni-
tes needed to meet each student’s needs everywhere at any
tme, but which are not all available within the four walls of
the traditonal classroom. (p. 10)
“Personalized learning models,” writes Wolf (2010), “reverse
the traditonal model that views tme and place (that is, seat-
tme) as the constant and achievement as the variable. Instead,
4