What is an Expert Learner?

Normality and the Mythical Average Learner

In The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (Hernnstien & Murray, 1994) and Real Education (Murray, 2009) , Charles Murray argues that human behavior — including IQ — distributes along a bell-shaped normal curve and that intelligence is fixed.

©www.greyenlightenment.com

Dudley- Marling and Gurn (2010) state that the theory of the normal curve, when applied to education, affects school placement, grading, college admission, educational policy and research, and teachers’ approach to instruction and learning. The authors argue that, “not only is the normal curve is not normal, the idea that human behavior distributes along a bell-shaped curve with most people clustered around the mean or average grossly oversimplifies the diversity of human experiences” (p. 3).  In addition, they note that the human experience is infinitely complex and that equating students with scores on a distribution, averages, or statistical norms ignores the complex systems of which students are a part (Dudley- Marling & Gurn, 2010) — a variety of educational staff, other students, and a myriad of learning environments.

The concept of normality, in which human diversity is characterized by a bell-shaped curve and populations are viewed around the idea of a statistical norm, is one of the most powerful ideological tools of modern society…there is probably no area of contemporary life in which some idea of a norm, mean, or average has not been calculated (Dudley- Marling & Gurn, 2010).

Learner Variability and the Expert Learner

The philosophy of normality and fixed intelligence only lends itself to the idea of the “mythical average learner” and ignores human diversity and learner variability. The UDL framework allows educators and school systems to focus on learner variability and creating expert learners.

But what is an expert learner? First, let’s look at the concept of expertise. Expertise is never static but rather a process of continuous learning…of becoming more motivated, knowledgeable, and skillful (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). Given the variability of learners and learning contexts, expertise looks different from person to person. Meyer et al. (2014) note that while the mastering of specific content and skills is still important, there should be an emphasis on process rather than product. Furthermore, they posit that learning expertise cannot be measured simply by evaluating competencies and outcomes at a single point in time because learning is a process of continuous change and growth.

We define expertise not as a destination — signifying the mastery of content knowledge and skills — but rather as a process of becoming “more expert” on a continuum of development…(Meyer et al., 2014).

Everyone can become an expert learner because everyone can develop the motivation, practice, reflection, self-efficacy, self-regulation, self-determination, executive functioning, comprehension, and situational awareness that help make experts what they are (Meyer et al., 2014). The authors argue that what makes expert learners experts is not content knowledge, but their ability to recognize where they are challenged, their motivation to overcome difficulties, and their skill at seeking out and using strategies to reduce or overcome barriers. Meyer and his colleagues offer learners several excellent questions to reflect on:

What are my strengths and weaknesses? What is the optimal setting for me to learn? Which tools amplify my abilities and support my areas of weakness? How do I best navigate my environment? How do I best learn from peers? How can I support myself when I feel anxious about an upcoming challenge? How can I be open to unlearning mistaken or outdated understandings and build new ones? How can I learn from my mistakes?

Thus, the key to expert learning is self-knowledge as a learner — an awareness of one’s strengths, challenges, and needs — and it is this self-reflection, an essential practice of expert learners, that personifies the growth mindset (Meyer et al., 2014).

Meyer, Rose, and Gordon (2014) note that expert learners are not created in a vacuum. While teaching is an inherent part of who we are and central to everything we do, they argue that expert learners require expert teachers who need to be expert learners themselves. The authors suggest that teachers need to cultivate their own development as teachers, embrace change, and continuously appraise their own work and their students’ progress and adapt on the fly. Furthermore, the authors state that the development of students and teachers as expert learners requires us to design educational systems to be expert systems – communities of practice – where expertise is valued, nurtured, and developed for educators and students both. Learning environments need to be smart and flexible enough to support expert learning which, in turn, requires that all parts of the system – students, educational staff, and school systems – work together as a flexible, supportive community and support the goal of learning expertise for all (Meyer et al. 2014).

Thus, Meyer and his colleagues (2014) champion UDL because it provides a framework to develop expert learners, expert teachers, and expert systems and assists educators in creating expert learners…learners that have become purposeful and motivated, knowledgeable and resourceful, strategic and goal-directed.

Learner Variability, Barriers, and Expert Learners in an Instructional Setting

When reflecting on these topics, my daughter and a particular instructional setting came to mind. A college sophomore, Shannon was taking Introduction to Sociology last semester. She shared with me that her professor was a young sociologist, an adjunct professor with little teaching experience. Shannon was one of 50 students. This class was a liberal arts requirement, the type of course which lends itself to larger numbers of students and faculty with less experience. Early on in the semester, my daughter bemoaned the fact that the professor mostly lectured from a PowerPoint presentation and pretty much read off the slides. Even though part of the grading rubric included points for participation, this professor did not stimulate conversation often. Tests were the only evaluative tool. My daughter was bored, not engaged, and unmotivated.

Let’s first reflect on the learner variability present in this classroom. There are 50 learners, each with different learning styles, competencies, strengths, talents, and needs. Variability goes far beyond that to include gender, culture, language, disability, economic background, previous schooling (e.g. public, private, parochial, charter school), past curriculum (e.g. IB, AP, honors, college preparatory, remedial classes, special education instruction), and study and organizational habits. And let’s not forget about past learning experiences – positive and negative experiences along with great and not so great teachers – that influence motivation, anxiety, stress, and other emotional responses connected to the affective networks of the brain. Learning is emotional work whether for students or for teachers (TU Office of Academic Innovation, 2016).

Meyer, Rose, and Gordon (2014) share that each person’s brain is unique just as their fingerprints are. Modern neuroscience is deeply relevant to education and provides insight into the nature and origins of learner variability (Meyer et al., 2014). The authors note that although learners are unique, they share common, predictable patterns of variability in the affective, recognition, and strategic networks of the brain.

©National Center on Universal Design for Learning

These 50 different learners bring to this class a variety of ways in which they:

• are engaged, stay motivated, challenged, excited, or interested (Affective Networks);
• gather facts; categorize what they see, hear, and read; or identify letters, words, or an author’s style (Recognition Networks)
• plan and perform tasks, and organize and express their ideas (Strategic Networks)

Each one of these 50 students is unique and learn in ways that are particular to them (Meyer et at., 2014). The suggestion of broad categories of learners is a flagrant oversimplification that does not reflect reality (Meyer et al., 2014). Looking at one’s class roster as simply 50 students is a distorted view when considering teaching style and delivery of instruction. Learner variability is much more complex and calls for the use of UDL principles when designing instruction. Ways to improve the instructional setting for these students include:

• Engagement – Play classical music at the start of and/or throughout class; provide feedback during discussions, other class work, and outside of class; teach simple techniques to help manage emotions; hold class outdoors; offer small group work (collaborative learning); invite guest lecturers, and plan field trips.
• Representation – Utilize presentations and lecture notes with visuals, music, embedded links and digital media; videos; websites; online and printed versions of textbooks; podcasts; and connect content to art, literature, film, music, science, history etc.
• Action and Expression – Provide options such as reflection papers, tests, blogging, video blogging, presentations, videos, online and in class discussion, and other assignments designed to be collaborative and allow students to show the application of their learning.

This learning environment is a far cry from a dry PowerPoint lecture and exams. It is more dynamic and engaging, and will help to remove barriers associated with the three networks of the brain and address:

• affect (emotional regulation) → Affective;
• the recognition strengths, needs, and preferences of learners → Recognition; and,
• the variability in and promotion of the acquisition of executive functions which are important higher level skills including planning, organizing, progress monitoring, constructing alternative strategies, and seeking help → Strategic (Meyer et at., 2014).

Thus, the goal is to design a flexible learning environment to address the variability of learners in this instructional situation and become expert learners — learners who  know how to learn and how they learn, and can apply those skills to other contexts including other courses, learning environments, and experiences after they leave Introduction to Sociology (Digital Promise, 2017).

---

References

Digital Promise. (2017, March 8). Research@work: Embracing learner variability in schools. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxLz_fSvBqU

Dudley-Marling, C. & Gurn, A. (2010). The myth of the normal curve. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Hernnstien. R. J. & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American Life. New York, NY: Free Press.

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.

Murray, C. (2009). Real Education. New York, NY: Crown Publishing.

TU Office of Academic Innovation. (2016, May 14). Universal design for learning: Variability in emotion and learning. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDaP-THd-9c&feature=youtu.be

Setting the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Context

UDL in my Environment

I am not an educator and have never been in a classroom. I currently work two days a week as a companion to a gentleman with disabilities, bringing him to work and keeping an eye on him while he goes about his duties at a local fire station.

Copyright http://www.themunicipal.com

One day is spent washing fire trucks and other vehicles; the other day is spent cleaning the interior of the fire house. He needs very little, if any, oversight while performing his job tasks. In addition to work, we explore the community together and I accompany him to speech therapy, therapeutic horseback riding, boxing lessons, and adaptive sailing lessons. Thus, my current job does not lend itself to applying UDL principles. However, when I think about Universal Design (UD) with respect to the fire house where we work, there is a handicap parking spot directly in front of the entrance and no curb so that visitors can easily walk onto the sidewalk. There is an additional ramp to the front door. Unfortunately, the front door is heavy, swings outward, and is not automatic. Offices and restrooms have appropriate signage but lack Braille and pictures. In addition, while handicap accessible, the restroom doors are heavy and there are no automatic faucets or paper towel dispensers. The firehouse is an older building in need of renovation.

UD and UDL are two different concepts but have complimentary pieces (Smith, 2017). UD removes physical barriers in the environment to help architects meet accessibility requirements under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and guides the development of products, services, and environments to ensure access to people with disabilities but which are also useful to all people (Ralabate, 2016). UDL is a framework for designing learning experiences to ensure everyone is both a successful and expert learner (Smith, 2017). Both offer physical accessibility in educational environments but UDL goes beyond accessibility by activating thinking, scaffolding deep understanding, and engaging learners (Ralabate, 2016).

Persistent Problems in the Practice of Education

Several persistent problems exist which prevent the adoption of UDL, technology, and ultimately, educational reform at a faster pace. Today, teachers are challenged to meet all students’ educational needs but not all students are succeeding. Ralabate (2016) states that many lessons are built on incorrect or old concepts about how students learn and are constrained by stagnant formats. Ralabate (2016) notes that good teaching is more process than product but in today’s high stakes world of education, there is strong emphasis on meeting local and state standards and I feel that often times, teachers are focused on “teaching to the test.” Furthermore, many traditional approaches to educational reform are rooted in misconceptions — different “kinds” of learners have been labeled as belonging to distinct groups; individualization of instruction has been offered according to those groups; and individual learners have been treated as separate from their contexts and environments (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014).

The goal of education today goes beyond mastery of knowledge and skills to the mastery of learning itself — becoming expert learners (Ralabate, 2016). UDL is the framework to make that happen and address persistent problems in the education today.  As classrooms become more diverse and inclusive, technology offers more flexibility than ever before, and teachers need to ensure that all learners meet state standards, UDL guides the development of barrier-free, instructionally rich learning environments and lessons that address learner variability and offer options for how students can engage in learning, receive information and instruction, and demonstrate their knowledge and skills (Ralabate, 2016). Education needs the transformative innovation that UDL can provide — emphasizing flexibility and individuality to revolutionize the way teaching and learning occurs (Meyer et al., 2014). We need to shift our mindset and move away from a traditional model of education that focuses on the mythical “average learner” to embrace a dynamic model that celebrates human diversity and learner variability (Meyer et al., 2014).

The UDL Lesson Planning Process in my Environment

As I mentioned above, my current job as a companion for a gentleman with disabilities does not lend itself to applying UDL principles. However, two other endeavors allow me to reflect on whether the UDL framework and principles have been and can be applied in those situations.

For several years now, I have been the Chair of the Sandwich Special Education Parent Advisory Council (SEPAC), a parent-run volunteer organization that advocates for students with disabilities in the Sandwich school district. As an educational advocate who was trained by the Federation for Children with Special Needs (FCSN) in Boston, I give presentations on the Federation’s behalf to SEPACs and other local groups.

For the SEPAC, I have created my own PowerPoint presentations and printed handouts for attendees. The FCSN does the same. I stand at the front of the room presenting material from the PowerPoint slides as workshop attendees follow along with their handouts. In both presentations, questions can be asked during and/or after the presentation. UDL is a framework that gives all individuals equal opportunities to learn…not a single, one-size-fits-all solution but rather flexible approaches that can be customized and adjusted for individual needs (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2014, para. 1). My SEPAC presentations and those of the FCSN clearly are one-size-fits-all, regardless of the variability in workshop attendees and do not utilize the three principles of UDL — multiple means of engagement of the learner, representation of information, and action and expression (Ralabate, 2016). Meyer, Rose, and Gordon (2014) noted that the “traditional approach to learning was dictated by the predominant learning medium of the time – printed text” (p. 3). Built on old concepts about how people learn and constrained by stagnant formats (Ralabate, 2016), the presentations rely heavily on printed media — handouts and information filled PowerPoint slides. I have given many workshops for the FCSN and have watched people walk out because the presentations are too long and boring, and not interactive and engaging.

Ralabate (2016) notes the importance of learners knowing lesson goals and expected outcomes. The FCSN outlines the presentation goals on one of the first slides in the PowerPoint and I do the same with my presentations. However, defining clear goals is the only step of the UDL lesson planning process involved in preparing the SEPAC and FCSN presentations. While determining appropriate assessments is not exactly applicable to the audience of these presentations (e.g. parents, community members, administrators, and teachers), the remaining steps of the UDL lesson planning process are not utilized: consideration of learner variability; selecting methods, materials, and media; and refining educator learning through self-reflection. The FCSN asks attendees to fill out an evaluation about the presentation and the workshop presenter. Since they realize the tediousness of the presentation and that I am at the mercy of how the FCSN has created these presentations, attendees quickly check off top marks for me as a presenter and blithely state that the presentation was very good. This in no way provides accurate feedback to me to allow me to improve my presentation skills or to the FCSN to allow them to improve the presentations.

Other ways in which my planning process and that of the FCSN differ from the UDL lesson planning process include the following:

A core tenet of UDL is that what is “essential for some” is almost always “good for all” (Ralabate, 2016). Both the SEPAC and the FCSN presentations need to be redesigned using the three principles of UDL and incorporating a variety of digital technology, thus making learning an interactive process and addressing the diversity of workshop attendees.

---

References

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.

National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2014, July 31). What is UDL? Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl

Ralabate, P. K. (2016). Your UDL Lesson Planner: The Step-by-Step Guide for Teaching All Learners. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Smith, F. (2017). Setting the UDL Context: SPED6210 . Retrieved from https://blackboard.gwu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_297066_1&content_id=_8377044_1

My Experience as a Learner

When I look back on my learning throughout the years, I have two experiences that stick out in my mind: Catholic school and graduate school.

My elementary and high school years were spent in Catholic school. The “what” of my learning was new material but the “how” of my learning did not make the information interesting and informative. The goal was not to learn material for future use but rather to be successful on tests and quizzes and then move on to new material and repeat the cycle. My learning was delivered in ways that were not engaging and didn’t encourage active learning. Instruction consisted of lecture, printed textbooks, blackboard work, seat work (e.g. work from textbooks), studying (e.g. memorization), and tests and quizzes. I do not recollect any group projects or collaborative work except for lab work in my high school chemistry class. My early education immediately made me reflect upon the early beginnings of CAST, the Center for Applied and Special Technology, depicted in Chapter 1 of our text Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice by Anne Meyer, David H. Rose, and David Gordon (2014) who noted that the “traditional approach to learning was dictated by the predominant learning medium of the time – printed text” (p. 3). As far as the “depth” of my learning was concerned, the standardized, uniform delivery of instruction did not challenge me to seek more information and knowledge, didn’t encourage reflection or questions, nor did it help me to develop critical thinking skills to dig deeper into the material presented. In elementary school, I remembered finishing my work before most of my fellow students and being bored. To ease the boredom, I practiced writing with my left hand (I’m right-handed) while waiting for others to finish their work. In short, multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement were clearly not utilized throughout my elementary and high school education (Meyer & Rose, 2005).

In graduate school, my Collaboration with Systems and Families course last fall was a great example of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in action. This class was all new material for me yet always very informative and interesting. In addition, the professor provided an amazing array of resources for future use in other courses and professional endeavors. The material made me want to seek out more information through online research or journal articles that were referenced by the authors of my reading assignments.

Instruction and information was delivered in a variety of formats – video lectures, printed lecture notes, video conferencing with the professor and guest speakers, readings (print and online), research, and assignments. The assignments were designed to provide a variety of different learning experiences by collaborating with a variety of individuals – parents, students, educators, administrators, and adult agency representatives. The professor used a flexible approach to assessments (Meyer & Rose, 2005), requiring students to utilize different methods of evaluation – Word documents, reflections, surveys, PowerPoint presentations, graphs, tables, resource directories, and guides – while allowing for some flexibility in format and presentation. The collaboration and presentation methods engaged me in the learning process. Active learning was encouraged because I had to apply the new material and information in the formulation of the assignments and then reflect upon my learning and how it would impact my future practices.

It is clear that the professor utilized the core principles of the UDL framework to provide:

• Multiple means of engagement;

• Multiple means of representation; and,

• Multiple means of action and expression (Meyer et al., 2014, p. 4).

She utilized a variety of options for presenting information, student expression, and student engagement through software including Blackboard, WebEx, and Skype; digital content including Pdfs, YouTube videos, and recorded and live video/audio of lecture notes; and Internet resources including websites, articles, webinars, and resources embedded in lecture notes (Meyer & Rose, 2005). As Meyer et al. (2014) noted, “We have seen classrooms become exciting, collaborative hotbeds of learning for all students” (p. 3). That accurately describes my experience in the Collaboration with Systems and Families course.

Today, the objective of education has shifted from the acquisition of knowledge to learner expertise (Meyer et al., 2014). This clearly can be seen when reflecting on my personal learning experiences from elementary/high school and graduate school.

---

References

Meyer, A. & Rose, D. H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In D. H. Rose, A. Meyer, & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.

 

What is Universal Design for Learning?

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework for curriculum development that gives all students equal opportunities to learn and for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that work for everyone…not a single, one-size-fits-all solution but rather flexible approaches that can be customized and adjusted for individual needs (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2014, para. 1). I am not an educator and work with adults with disabilities so I have not had the opportunity to learn about or implement the UDL framework. Thus, I am excited to be taking this graduate school class to learn about UDL. Please share with me your experiences in using UDL in the comments below.

Wordle from Howard-Winn Tech Blog

---

Reference

National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2014, July 31). What is UDL? Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl