10 minute read
Personalized Learning: How Does It Fit In Our World?, Megan Endicott
Personalized Learning How Does It Fit In Our World?
Megan Endicott Dolvin Elementary School, Georgia endicott@fultonschools.org
To recap from our part one discussion on personalized learning in the music room, many questions were asked concerning the implementation of this new teaching strategy. In an ideal personalized learning classroom, teachers are moving from lecturers to facilitators while student learning is carefully crafted to the individual learner themselves. This style of learning moves away from the traditional “one size fits all” approach (O’Donoghue, 2010). This approach to teaching, allows students more choice in demonstrating learning and mastery of the standards while playing to their interests, strengths, and weaknesses (Basham et al., 2016).
There are seven personalized learning principles adopted across the nation. Three of these principles were highlighted in the part one installment of this article. In this article, we will be focusing on voice and choice, mastery based assessments, flexible pacing, and co-plan learning.
Voice & Choice
In today’s digital society, most students have constant access to the internet and can find the answers to any question at any given time of the day. Because of this constant access to knowledge, students want to know even more than ever, “why” and “how does this affect me?”. Finding ways for students to have a voice in their learning offers relevance to student learning and builds accountability, buy-in, and interest. “The term ‘Student Voice’ describes how students give their input to what happens within the school and classroom” (Palmer, 2013).
I recognize that co-constructing knowledge with your students and straying from your lesson pacing chart is difficult, but here are some easy ways that I have included students’ voices in my lessons. “Poll” features are a great way to elicit students’ voices toward the direction that they would like to move through the lesson. Imagine that you are beginning a lesson on the history of Beethoven in preparation for a listening lesson on Beethoven’s 9th Symphony. You can run a quick poll at the beginning of a guided live lesson on Nearpod (nearpod.com) to discover if students would like to visit where Beethoven was born or where he lived. Nearpod is a technology tool that offers live instruction with real-time assessment features. Another important aspect of voice and choice is finding ways for each student’s voice to be heard. Offering ways for students to input information on a Padlet (padlet.com) wall, type short responses, or answer quick checks via formative assessments allows all students to be heard rather than the one student who is always raising their hand to answer. Some of the most wonderful comments have come from the quietest students whose voice may have never been heard without these resources. Padlet is a free, online resource, that transforms your board into a live interactive bulletin board that is updated in real-time.
Mastery Based Assessments
Mastery-based assessment is defined by the Fulton County School Personalized Learning Team as promoting “student progress through curriculum by showing mastery on assessments guided by proficiency and competency” (Mastery-based assessments). Included in the definition is ensuring teachers can bridge the gap between the student’s mastery of learning objectives with those of progress reports and report cards. One clear process for identifying student assessment is through continuous formative checks. Barry Zimmerman and Maria Dibenedetto from the Graduate Center of the City University of New York warn that large summative tasks with no formative checks or feedback along the way can cause low test scores and unmotivated students. They agree that these “limitations can be avoided by including formative assessment and an instructional component designed to enhance mastery learning” (Zimmerman & Dibenedetto, 2008). Fostering an environment that is mastery-based rather than the outdated psychometric approach measures individual student growth throughout the school year with a focus on the mastery of course objectives, rather than a comparison of student
achievement with a “normative sample” (Zimmerman & Dibenedetto, 2008). Through consistent feedback, formative checks, and tracking individual student growth, students will begin to take ownership of their learning.
Flexible Pacing
Just like adults, children learn in different speeds and through different processes. Variations in student learning should be taken into consideration when designing lessons plans where new content is learned. These flexible learning environments can be powerful if they promote “time for mastering concepts, a cognizance of student’s time requirements, and truly using formative assessments” (Fox, 2016). Finding time to implement flexible pacing in the confines of a traditional music class schedule can feel like a daunting task; however, finding innovative ways to incorporate differentiated tasks is key. In the music room, the most important learning happens at the beginning of each unit. Students are constructing new meaning to their learning and creating new paths of understanding based on prior knowledge. This is the perfect opportunity to create differentiated instruction that offers flexible pacing.
A strategy that I have used successfully in my room is incorporating a differentiated station model through in-class flipped instruction to offer students time to reflect on the content and process new information. Teaching solfege and or note reading to young readers is one of the foundations of making music; therefore, ensuring each student successfully grasps the concept in a way that is appropriate and personalized is key. To teach this concept, I begin class with a short full class teacher-directed lesson followed by a diagnostic assessment. This assessment can be reflective and answered by students giving you a show of thumbs, or through technology tools. This data should be used to place students into flexible groups based on the current knowledge of the content. I have found that four groups fit the needs of my classroom and student population. There is the “I can do this, but with your help”, “I can do this, but I need a little extra time exploring”, “I can do this, I can’t wait to show you!’, and “I can do this so well, I can teach others!”. Once the children are placed in their groups, I send students to my website (http:// dolvinmusicendicott. blogspot.com/p/students.html) where I house various activities and safe search sites on a student page. Through video produced lessons or student-paced technology lessons, students can move at their own pace and utilize live embedded resources in a “one-stop” location with built in exemplars, remediation and / or enrichment activities. In addition, live assessment results can be embedded and viewed throughout the class and after. While I find technology to be useful in my classroom, flexible pacing can also be present through analog tasks such as building in choice boards or “fast-finisher” activities for students who finish assigned differentiated tasks early. These tasks can be in the form of instrument playing task cards to support a song accompaniment they may be learning, a game or manipulative activity, or perhaps a task card offering student an opportunity to add in a choice for demonstrating their learning from the days activities.
Co-Planning Learning
To truly encourage student ownership, teachers must first establish a culture where co-planning learning is natural. Cameron Pipkin, author of “How to Prepare Your Students for Student-Centered Learning”, suggests establishing the following five steps “share assessment data with them, have students write their own goals, instill the message that everyone is different, rethink how you define skill levels, and redesign learning environments to reflect this change” (Pipkin, 2015). There are several ways for music teachers across the country to embrace this shift in learning. As Pipkin suggests, redesign your learning space to easily offer a change in arrangement at any given time. As you cycle through over one hundred students a day, music teachers are the first to recognize that teaching isn’t a “one size fits all” scenario. Ensuring that we are offering opportunities to all students to take part in the planning process not only piques student engagement, but it fosters a sense of community and interest. Goals can be set and shared, lessons and strategies can be suggested, and processes and implementation can offer input in multiple ways. Students can offer input or track goals as a ticket out the door, whether it be technology or paper. When working with a multitude of students, technology is the key for pulling this piece together. In my classroom, I have a bulletin board that displays each student’s assigned classroom number. Students can leave a post-it note on the way out to share their thoughts and opinions on what we have accomplished or invest in what’s to come. website (https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/ Product/FREE-Ticket-Out-the-DoorSign-Topper-534263) For my younger students, I allow them to share reflections through emojis on apps like iDoceo where they can share their feelings on a concept at the beginning of the unit and once again at the end of the unit. Through this planning, I can visually see how a student feels at the beginning of the unit to spark a conversation and create a personalized learning plan or goal to ensure a happy emoji at the end. In my classroom, students are offered flexible seating that can be moved around the room easily. Students sit on 6-foot benches that are organized by color for easy quick grouping and teamwork.
Flexible seating options such as scoop chairs, bean bags, and stools carefully stack and tuck away until collaborative group time. A cart loaded with technology tools including iPads, Chromebooks, headphones, splitters, and robotics are organized in a fashion to allow students quick and easy access to materials on the spot.
Closing
While we are working hard to ensure music educators are the ones defining how to incorporate personalized learning in the classroom, we must remember that we are music teachers first, working toward the common goal of creating and making music. It is important to know that personalized learning incorporates strategies of great teaching and encompass concepts that many of us are already implementing. I believe the biggest take away is that teaching should live on a continuum. We must never live only at the top or bottom; however, we should be consistently moving on the scale in accordance to the student learning process and teacher instruction.
For more information, please check for constant updates on my research and links by visiting my Smore page https://www.smore. com/rtj5d-personalized-learning-in-music.
References
FY14 FCS Citizen Centric Report. (n.d.). Retrieved June 11, 2017, from FY14 FCS Citizen Centric Report.pdf Anderson, N., & Henderson, M. (2004). e-PD: blended models of sustaining teacher professional development in digital literacies.
E-Learning and Digital Media, 1(3), 383-394. Basham, J. j., Hall, T. E., Carter Jr., R. A., & Stahl, W. M. (2016).
An Operationalized Understanding of Personalized Learning.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(3), 126-136. doi 10.1177/0162643416660835 Bauer, W. I., Reese, S., & McAllister, P. A. (2003). Transforming music teaching via technology: The role of professional development. Journal of research in Music Education, 51(4), 289-301. Cox, H. (2015). FCS Vanguard Team. Retrieved July 5, 2017, from http://www.fcsvanguard.org DeWitt, P. ( 2013, November 22). Standardization?
Personalization? Or both? Education Week, http://blogs. edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2013/11/ standardization_personalization_or_both.html
Fox, J., Sr. (2016, February 6). Use Flexible Pacing to Embrace
Students’ Differences. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from http:// inservice.ascd.org/use-flexible-pacing-to-embrace-studentsdifferences/ Greher, G. G. (2011). Music Technology Partnerships A Context for Music Teacher Preparation. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(3), 130-136. doi 10.1080/10632913.2011.566083 Just-In-Time Direct Instruction. (n.d.) Retrieved March 01, 2018, from http://fultonpl.weebly.com/just-in-time-direct-instruction. html Lands, B. (2013, February 03). The Landscape of
Learning. Retrieved March 01, 2018, from http://www. thelandscapeoflearning.com/2013/01/there-is-more-than-oneway-to.html Mastery-based Assessment. (n.d.) Retrieved March 01, 2018, from http://fultonpl.weebly.com/mastery-based-assessment.html Matzat, U. (2013). Do blended virtual learning communities enhance teachers’ professional development more than purely virtual ones? A large scale empirical comparison. Computers &
Education, 60(1), 40-51. Nadworny, E. (2016, February 19). Strategies to ensure introverted students feel valued at school. Mind/Shift, http://k12education. gatesfoundation.org/student-success/continued-progresspromising-evidence-on-personalized-learning/
O’Donoghue, J. (2010). Technology-supported Environments for Personalized Learning Methods and Case Studies. Hersey,
PA: IGI Global. Palmer, Bill. (2013, March 29). Including Student Voice. Retrieved
March 01, 2018, from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/ sammamish-2-including-student-voice-bill-palmer Pane, J., Steiner, E., Baird, M. & Hamilton, L. (2015). Continued progress: Promising evidence on personalized learning. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/ research_reports/RR1365.html.
Pipkin, C. (2016, July 10). How to Prepare Your Students for
Student-Centered Learning - EdSurge News. Retrieved March 01, 2018, from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2015-05-20how-to-prepare-your-students-for-student-centered-learning Stahl, R. J. (1994, April 30). Using “Think-Time” and “Wait-
Time” Skillfully in the Classroom. ERIC Digest. Retrieved
March 01, 2018, from https://www.ericdigests.org/1995-1/ think.htm Teach in a variety of groupings. (n.d.) Retrieved March 01, 2018, from http://fultonpl.weebly.com/teach-in-a-variety-ofgroupings.html
