What guides or constrains learner autonomy? September 27, 2007
Posted by sjubb in Commentary, Ideas and Reflections.trackback
One of the key questions that we keep hearing from you and others concerns learner autonomy in the social and institutional architecture we are proposing. Parents especially often feel young people have too much autonomy already–they want to know what will guide or constrain an autonomous learner’s choices.
It is interesting that the idea of learner autonomy triggers so much attention while the other constraining principles we have proposed are rarely questioned. So, without writing a master’s thesis on the subject, let me see if I can clarify what we are proposing.
Think of an accomplished adult we know — lets call her Sara. She lives within a network of relationships with people, communities and institutions that she has created for herself. She has a job, a college degree perhaps—she likes hiking and camping, hip hop dance, and spoken word concerts. She has people that she loves and cares about, people that care about her in return. She volunteers as a mentor of a young girl, Carina, who is 11 and struggling in school.
Sara’s only contractual commitment is the only one that pays her money: her job. In every case, other her choices are guided by her goals and her pursuit of value (or meaning, which is another expression of value). Her commitments are voluntary. Her network has a structure that gives her power and access to what she needs–in her case it is a robust network that gives her a lot of choices and opportunities.
What constrains Sara’s choices and guides her behavior? In order to get what she needs or wants, Sara offers value in exchange for the value she receives — value of one kind or another. For example, mentoring Carina satisfies her deeply felt desire to make the world better somehow. Carina gets a powerful role model and advocate (and trips to interesting places) in exchange. Their interactions over time are shaped by these exchanges, creating a powerful relationship–it persists over time and can be accessed as needed. More importantly, the expectations that these two have of one another constrain the choices they make.
When Sara is invited to a party she declines because she has already committed to take Carina to a local dance event. Sara has a relationship with Carina’s teachers and her parents. When Carina thinks about skipping school with friends now, her strong bond with Sara–and the specter of Sara’s disappointment and the other people it would impact (transparency)—gives her strong motivation to make a different choice (internal accountability).
Before there were schools most children participated communities of value and practice to learn and develop. Apprenticeship was the dominant learning paradigm in most communities — learning a trade or how to be an adult by participating in multi-generational communities with rights of passage connected to demonstrations of the learner’s ability to produce value for others and take up the rights and responsibilities of a full community member. When we speak of the learner’s network, think of it as another way to describe a child’s nascent community. Now apply the design principles:
- AUTONOMY increases the power of the learner
- OPENNESS increases access to resources available
- INTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY increases the significance and impact of relationships
- REAL-WORLD RELEVANCE authentically connects the learner to the real world
- TRANSPARENCY allows learners to see available resources and evaluate potential exchanges with better information
- CHOICE allows the learner to select resources aligned to her purpose and learning style
Think about how these principles together shape what a learner might chose or not chose to do with their autonomy.
So what guides or constrains the learner’s autonomy? You know the answer: the same things that guide or constrain yours, with one caveat: children need to be treated as apprentices who need appropriate challenges and supports as they become adults.
I think the most radical thing we are proposing is a new social structure for learning, and ultimately, new approaches to building learning communities that are interconnected and sustainable into adulthood.
Now its your turn–what would your vision be of these design principles in action? What do you believe would or should constrain learner autonomy?
It seems to me that one key “constraint” that should be applied to learner autonomy (regardless of age) is an attempt to provide breadth and prevent tunnel vision. When I was in high school, for instance, I certainly saw no relevance in most of the coursework I endured, and my independent learning was focused on music, bowling, and table tennis. Given my druthers, I would have done nothing but those three things. What I really needed was someone who a) didn’t demean those interests in favor of some predetermined curriculum, but also and equally someone who could help me think more expansively about what else I could learn to enrich my already well-developed interests. As a teacher and college administrator, I have to start with what my individual students are interested in and compelled by… and then I have to challenge each one of them to grow those interests, to build the intellectual networks that have the core interest at the center but which are more fully enriched and interconnected with other ideas.
This initiative comes at an important time for me, as I work to help our school rethink our own curriculum. I’ve been working toward more “personalized” learning, but this model is deeper and richer than others I’ve seen, and it’s pressing me in great ways. Thank you for your strong thinking and your clear ethic of care.